# OH Method Debate



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

What method is the best for OH?


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 17, 2020)

You forgot triangular Francisco


----------



## Nmile7300 (May 17, 2020)

OH THANK GOODNESS YOU ARE THE BEST @Sub1Hour


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

Did you literally just want to create another one? I really don't appreciate that.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 17, 2020)

I think YruRU is the best OH method.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Did you literally just want to create another one? I really don't appreciate that.


I'm trying to make a place to debate this topic OUTSIDE of a quest thread so you guys can get back to your OH


----------



## Nmile7300 (May 17, 2020)

I think not arguing is the best OH Method


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> I think not arguing is the best OH Method


Im a believer in debate, at least now it somewhere outside of that poor, poor quest thread


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> I'm trying to make a place to debate this topic OUTSIDE of a quest thread so you guys can get back to your OH



All this is going to do is create a new debate, not solve one. I'd also like to say I wasn't arguing about what the best OH method is. I was telling Muk to shut up and then listing reasons why he can't factually state Roux is better. I actually think Roux has more potential in OH than CFOP, *but that's an opinion and I recognize that*.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> All this is going to do is create a new debate, not solve one.


It's not trying to solve one, it's trying to *MOVE ONE*


----------



## Nmile7300 (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Im a believer in debate, at least now it somewhere outside of that poor, poor quest thread


Good point. That quest thread needs help.


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> It's not trying to solve one, it's trying to *MOVE ONE*



That's not going to happen unless the mods move it, and no matter your intentions it's going to end up resulting in a bigger debate, which is exactly what you were trying to avoid


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> That's not going to happen unless the mods move it, and no matter your intentions it's going to end up resulting in a bigger debate, which is exactly what you were trying to avoid


I was not trying to avoid the debate. I think that debates are very healthy for the community when they are done in the right place. I was just trying to get the quest thread back to a quest thread (also to my knowledge there is no OH method debate thread other than this one)


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

@PetrusQuber assuming owen is new to OH, he likely doesnt have the finger strnegth to turn 3+tps, therefore it would be easier with roux because you can be sub 20 with sub 3 tps


----------



## PetrusQuber (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> @PetrusQuber assuming owen is new to OH, he likely doesnt have the finger strnegth to turn 3+tps, therefore it would be easier with roux because you can be sub 20 with sub 3 tps


He can still get better, thats why we practise. And owen would still have to learn new techniques and Roux stuff, instead of practising (easy)


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

fun at the joy said:


> These were the most recent reconstructed official OH Averages on cubesolv.es.
> 
> faster solves doesn't mean higher TPS


roux still has better movecount


Owen Morrison said:


> I think YruRU is the best OH method.


yruru is trash


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> He can still get better, thats why we practise. And owen would still have to learn new techniques and Roux stuff, instead of practising (easy)


what techniques? what roux stuff?


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> yruru is trash


Cite your sources


----------



## PetrusQuber (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> what techniques? what roux stuff?


IDK since I’m not a Roux guy. You’re telling me you need no extra blockbuilding knowledge, no other stuff at all, to be fast with Roux?


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Cite your sources


thats not applicable here, there is no source to go off


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> @PetrusQuber assuming owen is new to OH, he likely doesnt have the finger strnegth to turn 3+tps, therefore it would be easier with roux because you can be sub 20 with sub 3 tps


I am new to OH, but I have no problem with my fingers not being strong enough to turn fast.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> yruru is trash


Whether it's better than Roux or not has yet to be seen, but it's certainly not trash. It's at least very close to other OH methods.


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> @PetrusQuber assuming owen is new to OH, he likely doesnt have the finger strnegth to turn 3+tps, therefore it would be easier with roux because you can be sub 20 with sub 3 tps



His TPS limit with Roux will be different than with CFOP, since it's a different moveset. Also he can easily break 3 TPS, to refer to J Perm's video: You should have the same TPS as the speed you can have sexy*6 [for OH, not TH]



mukerflap said:


> roux still has better movecount



Roux still has worse TPS ceiling



mukerflap said:


> yruru is trash



*OMG ANOTHER OPINION WITHOUT PROOF PLEASE SHUT UP UNTIL YOU HAVE PROOF*



mukerflap said:


> what techniques? what roux stuff?



Blockbuilding is the biggest one, would take a long time for him to get used to, especially with his CFOP habits. Also he still has to learn Roux and get used to LSE



mukerflap said:


> thats not applicable here, there is no source to go off



XD you just proved your point: you have no source other than your opinion. If you don't have proof then don't state it as fact


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> thats not applicable here, there is no source to go off


So therefore you cannot say its trash without any proof. You literally just shut down your own argument by saying there is nothing to back up your claim. And yes, it is in fact applicable to ask someone how they formed an opinion


----------



## Cuberstache (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> what techniques? what roux stuff?


CMLL and LSE. He's not going to instantly be sub-20 if he switched to Roux since he would have to learn and get comfortable with those new steps.


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> So therefore you cannot say its trash without any proof. You literally just shut down your own argument by saying there is nothing to back up your claim. And yes, it is in fact applicable to ask someone how they formed an opinion


_noun_
noun: *source*; plural noun: *sources*

1.
a place, person, or thing from which something originates or can be obtained.
only 1 person uses the method so i cannot give a source. However i can say things based on the description of the method


----------



## PetrusQuber (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> _noun_
> noun: *source*; plural noun: *sources*
> 
> 1.
> ...


How does description tell you it’s bad?


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> _noun_
> noun: *source*; plural noun: *sources*
> 
> 1.
> ...


Like what? YruRu is 4 gen and has excellent fingertricks without having to use table abuse. Not to mention 1L2GLL algs are out there and can be applied


----------



## fun at the joy (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Random averages. And the times in the averages aren't different enough to make a 2 TPS difference, which shows your point about TPS being the same wrong





mukerflap said:


> why do you mention those 2 specific averages? and max park has a faster average so of course it will be faster


These were the most recent reconstructed official OH Averages on cubesolv.es.


mukerflap said:


> and max park has a faster average so of course it will be faster


Max Park's Average TPS (Round 3 2FTI San Diego 2016 (10.59 Ao5)) - 7.57


mukerflap said:


> roux still has better movecount


You said: "Beacuse of 0 rotations and better ergonomics you can reach a higher TPS"
I clearly showed that Roux does NOT have higher TPS than CFOP, it's a lot lower actually. Stop saying "But Roux has less moves blah blah"


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> _noun_
> noun: *source*; plural noun: *sources*
> 
> 1.
> ...



You have no source of proof that yruru is bad is what we're saying


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> CMLL and LSE. He's not going to instantly be sub-20 if he switched to Roux since he would have to learn and get comfortable with those new steps.


how is CMLL hard to get comfortable with. and he says he averages 19 with roux already


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> How does description tell you it’s bad?


here is a description of my new method.
Use only j perm to solve the cube
are you seriously saying this description cannot tell you a sinlge thing on whether the method is bad?
can you prove this method is bad without a source?


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> how is CMLL hard to get comfortable with. and he says he averages 19 with roux already



Again, it's almost all blockbuilding techniques. CMLL is still 42 new algs, which takes time to get used to


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Like what? YruRu is 4 gen and has excellent fingertricks without having to use table abuse. Not to mention 1L2GLL algs are out there and can be applied


there is nothing wrong with table abuse


----------



## PetrusQuber (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> how is CMLL hard to get comfortable with. and he says he averages 19 with roux already


I avg 19 with LBL, don’t practise it. Also blockbuilding is the main one.


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> here is a description of my new method.
> Use only j perm to solve the cube
> are you seriously saying this description cannot tell you a sinlge thing on whether the method is bad?
> can you prove this method is bad without a source?



For that specific method, yes. Low TPS because of having to look around the cube for each swap. Bad lookahead for the same reason. And awful movecount. Ergonomics are okay, but it doesn't matter because of the previous points.


I can't do that with YruRU, and neither can you


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> You have no source of proof that yruru is bad is what we're saying


give me a source that solving the cube with only j perms is a bad method


PetrusQuber said:


> I avg 19 with LBL, don’t practise it. Also blockbuilding is the main one.


blockbuilding is literally easy and im a former cfop user it does not take long to get used to. even if you dont blockbuild cfop solutions arent bad for roux.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> here is a description of my new method.
> Use only j perm to solve the cube
> are you seriously saying this description cannot tell you a sinlge thing on whether the method is bad?
> can you prove this method is bad without a source?


Yes, Movecount will be easily 200+. Horrible Efficiency. Also completely Idiotic

Now lets look at the description of YruRU

4Gen after CP Line, Reasonable move count, excellent fingertricks, 2GLL is easy, Tons of small optimizations. 

And for the last time, _TELL US WHY YruRU IS TRASH_


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> For that specific method, yes. Low TPS because of having to look around the cube for each swap. Bad lookahead for the same reason. And awful movecount. Ergonomics are okay, but it doesn't matter because of the previous points.
> 
> 
> I can't do that with YruRU, and neither can you


and i think yruru is bad because of the description of the method


----------



## brododragon (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> here is a description of my new method.
> Use only j perm to solve the cube
> are you seriously saying this description cannot tell you a sinlge thing on whether the method is bad?
> can you prove this method is bad without a source?


You know what we want, stop nitpicking at the wording. Just prove that YruRu isn't good!


----------



## PetrusQuber (May 17, 2020)

@Owen Morrison how fast are you with Roux OH?


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> and i think yruru is bad because of the description of the method


Avoiding the details just proves you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to YruRU


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> give me a source that solving the cube with only j perms is a bad method



I don't need a source, I objectively proved it. Now please *objectively *prove YruRU is bad. If you can do it without citing another source, good for you.



mukerflap said:


> and i think yruru is bad because of the description of the method



Key word: think. It's your opinion, so *STOP STATING IT AS FACTS*. And again, what about it? You've said multiple times you can tell it's bad because of the description of the method, but have not once shown an example. You're attacking an argument we didn't make

Please lookup Staw Man fallacy, and then come back.


----------



## PetrusQuber (May 17, 2020)

I give up. I literally give up. Goodbye for today.


----------



## brododragon (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> and i think yruru is bad because of the description of the method


I think CFOP is mathematically the worst method possible to create because of the description. Got a problem?


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> I give up. I literally give up. Goodbye for today.



lol, I'm probably gonna have to leave and do some solves or something "productive" soon also


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 17, 2020)

Hawaiian Kociemba with EO at the beginning and unsolved DR edge is good for OH


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

This method is literally Briggs and Briggs is LEOR but you solve CP. For TH, this is pointless. ZBLL is good enough and doing CP for alg reduction is dumb. You also restrict how you can solve EO. For OH, this is also dumb for exactly the same reasons as for TH. The movecount of the method is good, the lookahead is not super great, especially as you're not gonna be inspecting EO in inspection (which is necessary for good LEOR). This means that you're gonna be doing a difficult step followed by a step with bad recog, before 2 nice steps. It's nice to see CP being explored at least, but there are definitely better ways to improve speedsolving (conjugation maybe, or writing an AI that finds good methods). If this were the Roux killer, Roux would've died 4 years ago, yet, as we can see from Sean, Kian and others, that isn't the case. From a cube theory/maybe fancy niche FMC, understanding CP is cool and I'm glad that I learnt, but it's not speedsolving useful (except maybe maybe maybe ZZ OH last slot using full CPLS [solving the pair and CP], but even then just OH ZBLL). 
TL;DR solving CP early doesn't benefit anything and this isn't new (it is fun though), but keep up searching for new methods. 

- papa smurf

Definitely worse than Roux.
There are too many small complicated steps, making it extremely difficult for me to believe that achieving fluid solving at high TPS is possible with this. The moveset is also quite far from ergonomic. RUru is pretty ugly for 2H due to wrist overturning and F-face thumb regrips every time a wide u is performed. It's arguably even worse for OH, for the same Uw front thumb regrip reason (as well as having to move middle finger from the E slice on the back). All of this extra work and dealing with ugly moves for a 2GLL finish is not worth it at all. If anything, this method shows how elegant and efficient Roux is as a method. The real roux-killer is more likely to be found in the hands of a young CFOP user who decides to learn how to actually build blocks properly and do giant Xcrosses every time followed by some ridiculous amount of algorithm sets solving LSLL. 
-kian



Since there is no way people can plan EO in inspection ( let alone FB) within 15 seconds, the method is trash and CP is just not a good concept for speedsolving. also the movecount isnt any better than cfop



brododragon said:


> I think CFOP is mathematically the worst method possible to create because of the description. Got a problem?


explain why


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 17, 2020)

lol when I first posted in here, I didn’t realize that this was funneled from Owen’s oh quest thread


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> This method is literally Briggs and Briggs is LEOR but you solve CP. For TH, this is pointless. ZBLL is good enough and doing CP for alg reduction is dumb. You also restrict how you can solve EO. For OH, this is also dumb for exactly the same reasons as for TH. The movecount of the method is good, the lookahead is not super great, especially as you're not gonna be inspecting EO in inspection (which is necessary for good LEOR). This means that you're gonna be doing a difficult step followed by a step with bad recog, before 2 nice steps. It's nice to see CP being explored at least, but there are definitely better ways to improve speedsolving (conjugation maybe, or writing an AI that finds good methods). If this were the Roux killer, Roux would've died 4 years ago, yet, as we can see from Sean, Kian and others, that isn't the case. From a cube theory/maybe fancy niche FMC, understanding CP is cool and I'm glad that I learnt, but it's not speedsolving useful (except maybe maybe maybe ZZ OH last slot using full CPLS [solving the pair and CP], but even then just OH ZBLL).
> TL;DR solving CP early doesn't benefit anything and this isn't new (it is fun though), but keep up searching for new methods.
> 
> - papa smurf
> ...



These are well-based opinions, but no facts that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that YruRU sucks for OH are presented



mukerflap said:


> explain why



He's mocking you


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> This method is literally Briggs and Briggs is LEOR but you solve CP. For TH, this is pointless. ZBLL is good enough and doing CP for alg reduction is dumb. You also restrict how you can solve EO. For OH, this is also dumb for exactly the same reasons as for TH. The movecount of the method is good, the lookahead is not super great, especially as you're not gonna be inspecting EO in inspection (which is necessary for good LEOR). This means that you're gonna be doing a difficult step followed by a step with bad recog, before 2 nice steps. It's nice to see CP being explored at least, but there are definitely better ways to improve speedsolving (conjugation maybe, or writing an AI that finds good methods). If this were the Roux killer, Roux would've died 4 years ago, yet, as we can see from Sean, Kian and others, that isn't the case. From a cube theory/maybe fancy niche FMC, understanding CP is cool and I'm glad that I learnt, but it's not speedsolving useful (except maybe maybe maybe ZZ OH last slot using full CPLS [solving the pair and CP], but even then just OH ZBLL).
> TL;DR solving CP early doesn't benefit anything and this isn't new (it is fun though), but keep up searching for new methods.
> 
> - papa smurf
> ...


Now, can you explain why its bad with your own words instead of just giving us quotes? This sounds like someone trying to BS a book report. "Would you recommend this Book?" "Yes, 5 stars would read again" "Why exactly would you recommend it?" 'The Plot" "What makes the plot so good?" "Because I like it" "What about the plot do you like?" "Here are some quotes from people who read the book."


mukerflap said:


> explain why


He is trying to get to you realize how ridiculous your argument is with YruRU


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> These are well-based opinions, but no facts that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that YruRU sucks for OH are presented
> 
> 
> 
> He's mocking you


he doesnt even understand my point


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> he doesnt even understand my point


Can you give us your point with evidence in your own words?


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> he doesnt even understand my point



It's hard to understand something that doesn't exist


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Now, can you explain why its bad with your own words instead of just giving us quotes? This sounds like someone trying to BS a book report. "Would you recommend this Book?" "Yes, 5 stars would read again" "Why exactly would you recommend it?" 'The Plot" "What makes the plot so good?" "Because I like it" "What about the plot do you like?" "Here are some quotes from people who read the book."
> 
> He is trying to get to you realize how ridiculous your argument is with YruRU


the quotes sum it up better than i can. and i did give my own words

yruru sucks because you cant plan EO in inspection, the movecount isnt much better than cfop, wide u moves arent good


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> yruru sucks because you cant plan EO in inspection


But you can plan cp in inspection...


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> It's hard to understand something that doesn't exist





> "and i think yruru is bad because of the description of the method"


my point is completely unrelated to what he said


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> the quotes sum it up better than i can. and i did give my own words



Your own words: "I can tell it's bad from the description"



mukerflap said:


> yruru sucks because you cant plan EO in inspection, the movecount isnt much better than cfop, wide u moves arent good



RUru can be done fast, as long as they don't alternate that much. EO isn't as hard as ZZ EO, similar to how doing EO in Roux isn't bad because of how much easier is.


----------



## ep2 (May 17, 2020)

Why is it important to say that a method you don't use isn't as good as one you do use? With speed cubing, there's two objectives, improve your own time and/or be faster than others. Getting people to use the method you believe is faster, which they don't agree with, seems counter productive. If people want to spend time on other methods, just let them. The only reason I think someone might argue against it, is if they're afraid it might end up being faster and they'll have wasted time themselves on an inferior method.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> the quotes sum it up better than i can. and i did give my own words
> 
> yruru sucks because you cant plan EO in inspection, the movecount isnt much better than cfop, wide u moves arent good


I dont care if quotes can sum it up better then you can. Why write an essay when you can just plagarise one from someone with the same viewpoint as you? I mean they can sum it up better than you can. The 1 line you gave does not hold enough evidence to disprove the method. You are totally ignoring that 2GLL is excellent along with ergonomics being much better then roux because it does not require table abuse to achieve excellent TPS.


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> But you can plan cp in inspection...


when did i say you couldnt?


ProStar said:


> Your own words: "I can tell it's bad from the description"
> 
> 
> 
> RUru can be done fast, as long as they don't alternate that much. EO isn't as hard as ZZ EO, similar to how doing EO in Roux isn't bad because of how much easier is.


yes it is because you have to recognise it instantly, whereas in zz eo you have 15 seconds to plan eo, roux eo there are 0 blindspots and is very easily predicted in cmll as cmll is an algorithm


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

ep2 said:


> Why is it important to say that a method you don't use isn't as good as one you do use? With speed cubing, there's two objectives, improve your own time and/or be faster than others. Getting people to use the method you believe is faster, which they don't agree with, seems counter productive. If people want to spend time on other methods, just let them. The only reason I think someone might argue against it, is if they're afraid it might end up being faster and they'll have wasted time themselves on an inferior method.



I think Roux is better for OH than CFOP. I've said that. I'm arguing against Muk's stupidity, not whether Roux is better. I don't have proof that Roux is better, which is why it's simply my opinion and I don't state it as fact.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> 0 blindspots


Hmm yes, let me see through the cube to the DB slot. Or I could even use a mirror under the cube to take a peek at what piece that is


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> whereas in zz eo you have 15 seconds to plan eo, roux eo there are 0 blindspots and is very easily predicted in cmll as cmll is an algorithm



you don't use 15 seconds to plan EO, and lookahead is made easier in OH. Roux EO has blind spots, I'd like you to scramble a cube, look at the U face only, and tell me what the DF and DB edges are.


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> I dont care if quotes can sum it up better then you can. Why write an essay when you can just plagarise one from someone with the same viewpoint as you? I mean they can sum it up better than you can. The 1 line you gave does not hold enough evidence to disprove the method. You are totally ignoring that 2GLL is excellent along with ergonomics being much better then roux because it does not require table abuse to achieve excellent TPS.


how on earth do you consider it not requiring table abuse to be a valid argument


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Or I could even use a mirror under the cube to take a peek at what piece that is



Kian's secret method revealed. Forget Zeroing, this is the new thing


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> you don't use 15 seconds to plan EO, and lookahead is made easier in OH. Roux EO has blind spots, I'd like you to scramble a cube, look at the U face only, and tell me what the DF and DB edges are.


EO is always even. You can count the edges on the U layer, and if the DF sticker is White/yellow, its misoriented. therefore there are no blindspots because its so easy to know exactly of the DB edge is oriented or not


Sub1Hour said:


> Hmm yes, let me see through the cube to the DB slot. Or I could even use a mirror under the cube to take a peek at what piece that is


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> EO is always even. You can count the edges on the U layer, and if the DF sticker is White/yellow, its misoriented. therefore there are no blindspots because its so easy to know exactly of the DB edge is oriented or not


Ok so you never ever have to know what the DB edge is during FB or SB, makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Ok so you never ever have to know what the DB edge is during FB or SB, makes perfect sense to me.



He said specifically for EO


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Ok so you never ever have to know what the DB edge is during FB or SB, makes perfect sense to me.


its easy to know beacuse you plan FB+SS/DR in inspection in high level roux


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> He said specifically for EO


For EO you don't need to know what it is, but for FB and SB you do. CFOP has 0 blind spots after 1st pair if you insert into RB or LB, That portion of the solve can be 1 looked by a lot of cubers so CFOP essentially has no blind spots


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> For EO you don't need to know what it is, but for FB and SB you do. CFOP has 0 blind spots after 1st pair if you insert into RB or LB, That portion of the solve can be 1 looked by a lot of cubers so CFOP essentially has no blind spots


Have you ever heard of lookahead before, and you literally plan FB and a part of sb in inspection


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> Have you ever heard of lookahead before



Have you ever heard of the concept of shutting up when you're beaten before?


----------



## fun at the joy (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> when did i say you couldnt?
> 
> yes it is because you have to recognise it instantly, whereas in zz eo you have 15 seconds to plan eo, roux eo there are 0 blindspots and is very easily predicted in cmll as cmll is an algorithm


If Roux doesn't have blind spots during EO then YRuru doesn't have them either


mukerflap said:


> the quotes sum it up better than i can. and i did give my own words
> 
> yruru sucks because you cant plan EO in inspection, the movecount isnt much better than cfop, wide u moves arent good


There are 2.57 Uw Moves on Average on the last 21 example solves with YRuru. Uw moves suck but 3 per solve doesn't make YRuru thrash.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> Have you ever heard of lookahead before


Yes, In fact I have. I find it much easier to lookahead to pieces that are visible throughout 3/4 of the solve. Roux has blind spots as well as CFOP, but its much easier to mitigate when the blind spot has been eliminated during the first 1-2 seconds instead of during the entire solve


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

fun at the joy said:


> If Roux doesn't have blind spots during EO then YRuru doesn't have them either
> 
> There are 2.57 Uw Moves on Average on the last 21 example solves with YRuru. Uw moves suck but 3 per solve doesn't make YRuru thrash.


no because roux EO is different from yruru eo


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> no because roux EO is different from yruru eo


Explain


----------



## fun at the joy (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> no because roux EO is different from yruru eo


how does that relate to the blind spots?


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Explain


this is literally obvious


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

fun at the joy said:


> how does that relate to the blind spots?


the blindspot in roux eo does not even matter becaause you can instantly know what orientation it is


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> this is literally obvious


If its so obvious I'm certain you wont mind telling us about how different it is.


----------



## fun at the joy (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> the blindspot in roux eo does not even matter becaause you can instantly know what orientation it is


The blindspot in YRUru EO does not even matter because you can instantly know what orientation it is.


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

fun at the joy said:


> The blindspot in YRUru EO does not even matter because you can instantly know what orientation it is.


prove it


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> prove it


prove how different Roux EO and YruRU EO is first


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Roux EO and YruRU EO


Or you could just use Petrus (eo)


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 17, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Whether it's better than Roux or not has yet to be seen, but it's certainly not trash. It's at least very close to other OH methods.


I personally have tried YruRU and decided that the commitment was too high for me to use it as my main method. However the ergonomics are very good for OH, the only problem for me is planning first two corners AND CP in under 15 seconds


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> RUru is pretty ugly for 2H due to wrist overturning and F-face thumb regrips every time a wide u is performed. It's arguably even worse for OH, for the same Uw front thumb regrip reason (as well as having to move middle finger from the E slice on the back).


wait so you think RUru sucks for OH but you think RUFBru is good? I mean, come on, RUFBru has RUru in it but two extra faces that require regrips.


----------



## mukerflap (May 17, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> wait so you think RUru sucks for OH but you think RUFBru is good? I mean, come on, RUFBru has RUru in it but two extra faces that require regrips.


B moves dont require regrips if you know how to do them, same with F moves


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> B moves dont require regrips if you know how to do them, same with F moves


ok I see how F moves don't require regrips but how is RUFBru good and RUru sucks?


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> yruru sucks because you cant plan EO in inspection,


Roux sucks because you can't plan EO in inspection

(not my actual opinion I am just showing how flawed your argument was)


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> B moves dont require regrips if you know how to do them, same with F moves





Sub1Hour said:


> prove how different Roux EO and YruRU EO is first


----------



## fun at the joy (May 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> prove it


pEO-extension is the second step of this method.
This orients DB so there is no blindspot.
I forgot about that.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 17, 2020)

Hey, @mukerflap have you tried YruRU yet?

Just curious

Also @ProStar maybe try holding off on the name calling, it doesn't help the situation and gives him ammo against you.

Y'all also have to remember that 95% of people on here are like 8 years old, so of course most users would be stubborn to the point of obstinacy because they are not yet fully ready to handle grown up debates.


----------



## mukerflap (May 18, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> Hey, @mukerflap have you tried YruRU yet?
> 
> Just curious
> 
> ...


definitely not passive aggresively name calling. and i have tried yruru


----------



## ProStar (May 18, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> roux is trash



Oh boy



NevEr_QeyX said:


> Also @ProStar maybe try holding off on the name calling, it doesn't help the situation and gives him ammo against you.



Not exactly _name calling_, but I guess I agree



NevEr_QeyX said:


> Y'all also have to remember that 95% of people on here are like 8 years old, so of course most users would be stubborn to the point of obstinacy because they are not yet fully ready to handle grown up debates.



I dunno about 8, I'd say more 10-12


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 18, 2020)

honestly YruRu seems like cfop movecount but better fingertricks for OH, but probably worse lookahead. Who knows, it might have more potential than Roux or cfop?


----------



## Cuberstache (May 18, 2020)

As someone who has at least some familiarity with both methods...

YruRU EO has no blindspot because you force DB to be oriented, and with no right hand covering up the cube, you can see the entire right face pretty easily.
Roux EO is as simple as muk has described; the main things that make it.
EO is not done in inspection with _either _method, so I don't know why it was brought up in the first place.
I didn't even realize how few Uw moves YruRU has so that's cool
Tabling does not make a method bad; LSE can be done quickly with one hand with practice, probably in less time than it takes to learn how to do CPLine in inspection lol
Ergonomics are hard to argue but since Roux has all YruRU moves plus more, YruRU clearly wins that category (after FB anyway)


----------



## brododragon (May 18, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> This method is literally Briggs and Briggs is LEOR but you solve CP. For TH, this is pointless. ZBLL is good enough and doing CP for alg reduction is dumb. You also restrict how you can solve EO. For OH, this is also dumb for exactly the same reasons as for TH. The movecount of the method is good, the lookahead is not super great, especially as you're not gonna be inspecting EO in inspection (which is necessary for good LEOR). This means that you're gonna be doing a difficult step followed by a step with bad recog, before 2 nice steps. It's nice to see CP being explored at least, but there are definitely better ways to improve speedsolving (conjugation maybe, or writing an AI that finds good methods). If this were the Roux killer, Roux would've died 4 years ago, yet, as we can see from Sean, Kian and others, that isn't the case. From a cube theory/maybe fancy niche FMC, understanding CP is cool and I'm glad that I learnt, but it's not speedsolving useful (except maybe maybe maybe ZZ OH last slot using full CPLS [solving the pair and CP], but even then just OH ZBLL).
> TL;DR solving CP early doesn't benefit anything and this isn't new (it is fun though), but keep up searching for new methods.
> 
> - papa smurf
> ...


GJ! It took you 30+ posts to make one post proving your point.


mukerflap said:


> If this were the Roux killer, Roux would've died 4 years ago, yet, as we can see from Sean, Kian and others, that isn't the case.


If Roux was a TH killer, CFOP would've died 16 years ago. Therefore, Roux is trash.


mukerflap said:


> explain why


Practice what you preach.


mukerflap said:


> he doesnt even understand my point


Yes, It's completely my fault for not understanding the point you didn't care to share until after I posted.


mukerflap said:


> my point is completely unrelated to what he said


Refer to above.


mukerflap said:


> prove it


Lucky for you, you made the proof:


mukerflap said:


> EO is always even. You can count the edges on the U layer, and if the DF sticker is White/yellow, its misoriented. therefore there are no blindspots because its so easy to know exactly of the DB edge is oriented or not





mukerflap said:


> the blindspot in roux eo does not even matter becaause you can instantly know what orientation it is





mukerflap said:


> Have you ever heard of lookahead before, and you literally plan FB and a part of sb in inspection


So then why don't you just look-ahead EO?


mukerflap said:


> B moves dont require regrips if you know how to do them, same with F moves


Yes, more different moves are obviously better. This is what makes <RUF> better than <RU> for OH.


Now that I've wasted thirty minutes of my life using someone's arguments against them, I can actually have an opinion. Here it is; why isn't LEOR good for OH?


----------



## brododragon (May 18, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> I give up. I literally give up. Goodbye for today.


Well, at least you're sane.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 18, 2020)

brododragon said:


> why isn't LEOR good for OH?


Pretty sure the main reason is that without full ZBLL it's meh. As a method in general, it's good for OH, I think.


----------



## brododragon (May 18, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Pretty sure the main reason is that without full ZBLL it's meh. As a method in general, it's good for OH, I think.


Hmm.. might use it since it's pretty similar to Petrus.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 18, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Hmm.. might use it since it's pretty similar to Petrus.


Oh, EO is a problem too. Try forcing DB to be good like YruRU does. Or predict EO in inspection.


----------



## ProStar (May 18, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Hmm.. might use it since it's pretty similar to Petrus.



Not really...


----------



## brododragon (May 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Not really...


It's just blockbuilding the 223 differently and combining the second blockbuilding step with EO.


----------



## ProStar (May 18, 2020)

brododragon said:


> It's just blockbuilding the 223 differently and combining the second blockbuilding step with EO.



No, it's a Roux block, EO that's different from Petrus, then Petrus F2L (Not trying to discourage you, just pointing it out)


----------



## mukerflap (May 18, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Oh, EO is a problem too. Try forcing DB to be good like YruRU does. Or predict EO in inspection.


its possible to see eo in inspection in leor


----------



## brododragon (May 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> No, it's a Roux block, EO that's different from Petrus, then Petrus F2L (Not trying to discourage you, just pointing it out)


Yeah, more of a Roux-Petrus mix.


mukerflap said:


> its possible to see eo in inspection in leor


But not in YruRu?


----------



## ProStar (May 18, 2020)

brododragon said:


> But not in YruRu?



No.


----------



## Hazel (May 18, 2020)

My issue with YruRu is that it's not immediately obvious how it's pronounced 
Is it like... "why-are-you roo"?


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 18, 2020)

Aerma said:


> My issue with YruRu is that it's not immediately obvious how it's pronounced
> Is it like... "why-are-you roo"?


I always say it in my head "You Roux" but thats only assuming the first R is silent


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I dunno about 8, I'd say more 10-12


I was using hyperbole.


----------



## ProStar (May 18, 2020)

Aerma said:


> My issue with YruRu is that it's not immediately obvious how it's pronounced
> Is it like... "why-are-you roo"?



According to the wiki page(written by the author of the method), "Why Roo Roo", standing for *creators name which I forgot but it started with Y*'s RUru Reduction, but he says it's also a play on words "Why Roux"


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> According to the wiki page(written by the author of the method), "Why Roo Roo", standing for *creators name which I forgot but it started with Y*'s RUru Reduction, but he says it's also a play on words "Why Roux"


I'm pretty sure it's Vay-roo-roo


----------



## ProStar (May 18, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> I'm pretty sure it's Vay-roo-roo






> *YruRU* (pronounced Why-Roo-Roo) is a 3x3x3 method... ...The name YruRU is said to stand for Yash's r-u-R-U reduction, but can also be interpreted as "Why Roux?", a dig on Roux...



Only contributor is the method creator


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Only contributor is the method creator


Hmmm... @CuberStache I think you made a pronunciation error in your YruRU tutorials.

I also remember reading Devagio saying it was pronounced Vay but IDK maybe my brain lied to me, happens all the time


----------



## ProStar (May 18, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> Hmmm... @CuberStache I think you made a pronunciation error in your YruRU tutorials.



Man, that guy is so deceptive! First his name is CuberStache even though he doesn't have a mustache anymore, and now he's misleading about pronunciation! We should start a petition to get him banned


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Man, that guy is so deceptive! First his name is CuberStache even though he doesn't have a mustache anymore, and now he's misleading about pronunciation! We should start a petition to get him banned


You have your first signature

It's just a prank Cuberstach


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 18, 2020)

Okay, I'm gonna use the Why Roux Roux pronunciation but without the last roux.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 18, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Okay, I'm gonna use the Why Roux Roux pronunciation but without the last roux.


Speaking of Why roux, how the heck to you fingertrick M (not M' that's easy) it makes no sense that people can do M that fast. So my question instead is How roux?


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 18, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> Speaking of Why roux, how the heck to you fingertrick M (not M' that's easy) it makes no sense that people can do M that fast. So my question instead is How roux?


I am going to start pronouncing it HowRU also.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 18, 2020)

alright we are officially changing the name of the method to YruRU (pronounced How Roo)


----------



## brododragon (May 18, 2020)

The correct way to pronounce it is "Briggs".


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 18, 2020)

brododragon said:


> The correct way to pronounce it is "Briggs".


My mans

you better sleep with one eye open


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 18, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> Speaking of Why roux, how the heck to you fingertrick M (not M' that's easy) it makes no sense that people can do M that fast. So my question instead is How roux?


You enslave the table to do your biddings.


----------



## brododragon (May 18, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> My mans
> 
> you better sleep with one eye open


What?


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 18, 2020)

brododragon said:


> What?


It's ok, you'll get it when you're older

It's just a prank bro


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 18, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> You enslave the table to do your biddings.


But how does one DO it?

(I know what you think I mean Mr. Nasty Mind)


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 18, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> It's ok, you'll get it when you're older
> 
> It's just a prank bro


He doesn't listen to Metallica bro this is so sad Alexa play Gunga Ginga type beat


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 18, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> But how does one DO it?
> 
> (I know what you think I mean Mr. Nasty Mind)


You pay it in subway giftcards with less then 2 dollars of credit each but you have to give it like 5 so it can actually buy lunch with it


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 18, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> You pay it in subway giftcards with less then 2 dollars of credit each but you have to give it like 5 so it can actually buy lunch with it


Right...


----------



## Cuberstache (May 18, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> Hmmm... @CuberStache I think you made a pronunciation error in your YruRU tutorials.
> 
> I also remember reading Devagio saying it was pronounced Vay but IDK maybe my brain lied to me, happens all the time


Devagio pointed this out to me via PM lol. There was a post where Devagio indicated it was "vaay" but he has corrected it since. The correct pronunciation is "why-roo-roo".


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 18, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Devagio pointed this out to me via PM lol. There was a post where Devagio indicated it was "vaay" but he has corrected it since. The correct pronunciation is "why-roo-roo".


Dangit, I'll never be able to see why roo roo instead of Vay roo roo when I see the method name


----------



## brododragon (May 18, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> It's ok, you'll get it when you're older
> 
> It's just a prank bro


I somehow managed to not see the threat part. Anyway, I'm at Null Island, so good luck.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 18, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I somehow managed to not see the threat part. Anyway, I'm at Null Island, so good luck.


Sure........

I know where you live. 




It's just a prank bro


----------



## brododragon (May 18, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> Sure........
> 
> I know where you live.
> 
> ...


Actually, my phone's just all wonky, so it says Null Island.


----------



## ProStar (May 18, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Actually, my phone's just all wonky, so it says Null Island.



Dude it's buoy there aren't many places to hide


----------



## brododragon (May 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Dude it's buoy there aren't many places to hide


No. Null Island is so popular because lots of times when phones mess up the location you end up with Null Island.


NevEr_QeyX said:


> Sure........
> 
> I know where you live.
> 
> ...


Also, I guess while the song's stuck in my head, I'll quote it:
"Write my name on your hitlist might be the last time you wrote something.


----------



## Timoth3 (May 18, 2020)

brododragon said:


> No. Null Island is so popular because lots of times when phones mess up the location you end up with Null Island.
> 
> Also, I guess while the song's stuck in my head, I'll quote it:
> "Write *MY* name on your hitlist might be the last time you wrote something.


“Not too graphic, but not PG”


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 18, 2020)

So I have a few things to say:
Firstly you have ignored the best oh method on your poll (leor) and yet you have put meme methods on there (Hawaiian Kociemba). Secondly YruRU is not a new method it is Briggs I don’t mean to hate on Devagio he has clearly put lots of work into come up with this on his own seperately from Briggs but it is still a different method. If someone came up with cfop but influenced first pair and named it something different it isn’t a different method. If you want to give Devagio credit I would recommend calling it Briggs with Devagio CP as this seems to be the main difference.

Finally I want to say that Briggs is not worth it because it is leor with extra steps for no gain. 2gll is not much better than zbll and any one trying to get sub 12 with leor Should have learnt or be learning 2gll - if you wanted to be fast at OH without algs you would just learn roux. The only way I can see Briggs being better than leor is if someone learnt 1llsll which even with Briggs is over 7k algs and definitely isn’t viable at this point in time.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 18, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> yet you have put meme methods on there (Hawaiian Kociemba)



You will feel the full extent of THE POWER OF THE PINEAPPLES!!


----------



## antonio19kamh3 (May 18, 2020)

thing with lse vs 2gll is that with lse, you don't really have any recognition issues and can just do it pauseless after cmll, but with 2gll, you need to pause to recognise, which wastes quite a lot of time in comparison


----------



## slowhandzboi (May 18, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I think YruRU is the best OH method.


YruRU is actually Briggs method


----------



## brr_ya (May 18, 2020)

How does CP affect the solve?


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 18, 2020)

brr_ya said:


> How does CP affect the solve?


It allows it to be fully 2gen after EO stripe and reduces alg count


----------



## mukerflap (May 18, 2020)

brr_ya said:


> How does CP affect the solve?


it means you have a 2 gen last layer.


----------



## HaHaHaHeeHeeHee (May 18, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> Speaking of Why roux, how the heck to you fingertrick M (not M' that's easy) it makes no sense that people can do M that fast. So my question instead is How roux?


lol its pretty easy u put the cube on the dr edge on the table at 45 degrees and u flick the f sticker of the df edge with pinky finger
and also I think that Roux is better in terms of proportionality to ur 2h times
cuz I average like 20 with cfop and about 40 oh with cfop
and I average like 17 with Roux and average about 25-26 oh with roux

the main thing that I think makes me slow for cfop oh is the L and L' moves in f2l compared to the R and r moves of f2b
so out of cfop and roux I say roux is better

cant speak about vaayrooroo cuz I dont know it but I hear that its a kinda bot method so im not gonna look into it


----------



## PizzaCuber (May 18, 2020)

Why does this have 8 pages already and it was posted yesterday...


----------



## ep2 (May 18, 2020)

PizzaCuber said:


> Why does this have 8 pages already and it was posted yesterday...



Because there's another 4 pages of discussion in another thread. It should be about 12.


----------



## HaHaHaHeeHeeHee (May 18, 2020)

brododragon said:


> GJ! It took you 30+ posts to make one post proving your point.
> 
> If Roux was a TH killer, CFOP would've died 16 years ago. Therefore, Roux is trash.


I think the reason that CFOP is still the main method is for a few reasons
1. it easily transfers from LBL, which is why I started out with it
the next one I think is partially my problem
2. Roux has *extremely* _and I mean _extremely few resources- I only figured out that there was a roux method from j perms overview video
which led me to Kians videos... so I think that this is the reason that less people use roux compared to cfop
3. idk why, but ppl seem to think that blockbuilding is hard. I learnt Roux last december and averaged like 2 minutes per solve and that was using pll algs to skip ul ur and oll to skip eo but in like 2-3 months i got to sub 25 so its not hard at all


and also Sean Villanueva is 3rd WR for 3x3 avg and Kian Mansour is 3rd WR for OH avg
also before Kian are Max and Patrick, but then you have to look at the difference in 3x3 between Max and Patrick and Kian vs the difference in Oh, which is a very small fraction of a second


----------



## brododragon (May 18, 2020)

HaHaHaHeeHeeHee said:


> I think the reason that CFOP is still the main method is for a few reasons
> 1. it easily transfers from LBL, which is why I started out with it
> the next one I think is partially my problem
> 2. Roux has *extremely* _and I mean _extremely few resources- I only figured out that there was a roux method from j perms overview video
> ...


I was making a point of how methods don't just become the greatest instantly.


----------



## Etotheipi (May 18, 2020)

I think the best OH method is going to be one specifically designed for OH. None of the current main OH methods had this in mind when they were developed as far as I'm aware of, but YruRU/Briggs is a step in that direction, though they may not have surpassed 2H methods yet for OH. but if OH methods continue to get more attention and development then I do think better OH methods will be found that beat standard 2H methods.


----------



## RedstoneTim (May 19, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> I think the best OH method is going to be one specifically designed for OH. None of the current main OH methods had this in mind when they were developed as far as I'm aware of, but YruRU/Briggs is a step in that direction, though they may not have surpassed 2H methods yet for OH. but if OH methods continue to get more attention and development then I do think better OH methods will be found that beat standard 2H methods.


I can't agree with you here at all.

Firstly, a lot of people care about OH and are actively trying to improve at it. That's mainly because OH is not that hard to learn when you already know normal 3x3 (it's mainly getting used to new fingertricks and slightly altering your solving style, for example more EO influencing or fixed BL edge) and because there's more room for method improvement than for 2H since the currently dominating method, CFOP, is not nearly the best OH method of the big four. By no means does this mean that CFOP is a bad OH method - it's actually pretty good as evidenced by the world records and rankings -, but Roux is objectively superior. This means that OH already gets a lot of attention: especially Rouxers are constantly developing their method to be better for OH.

My second point is that a method doesn't have to be designed specifically for something to be good for it. Of course if you want to create a good OH method, there's no reason to invent a method for 2H and just hope it's good for OH as well. But that doesn't mean a method designed specifically for 2H can't be very good for OH after some adjustments.
Take Roux as an example: no one a decade ago thought that Roux had lots of potential for OH - until Thom Barlow discovered table abuse and found out that this would revolutionize OH Roux. That in my opinion is the sole reason that Roux is as good for OH as it's now, so I don't see why this couldn't happen with any other 2H method. It's great that people are creating methods specifically for OH, but you still have to keep in mind that most good ideas were initially created with a totally different purpose. Sometimes, a weird thing you had only intended for your architecture students might just become one of the best selling toys in the world - even if you wouldn't have ever expected that to happen when you invented it.


----------



## Etotheipi (May 19, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> I can't agree with you here at all.
> 
> Firstly, a lot of people care about OH and are actively trying to improve at it. That's mainly because OH is not that hard to learn when you already know normal 3x3 (it's mainly getting used to new fingertricks and slightly altering your solving style, for example more EO influencing or fixed BL edge) and because there's more room for method improvement than for 2H since the currently dominating method, CFOP, is not nearly the best OH method of the big four. By no means does this mean that CFOP is a bad OH method - it's actually pretty good as evidenced by the world records and rankings -, but Roux is objectively superior. This means that OH already gets a lot of attention: especially Rouxers are constantly developing their method to be better for OH.
> 
> ...


I never said that 2H methods are bad for OH at all, I was just saying that methods that are designed specifically for OH can have more potential than methods that were designed for 2H and just happened to be good for OH, and as such got optimized for that. Though maybe 2H methods are the best, but I doubt that.


----------



## maticuber (May 19, 2020)

In general good 2H methods have the lowest move count possible that's also easy to recognize, and guess what, that's also pretty good for OH. You obviously want to optimize the moves for OH, but F2L has always been good for OH, and LL variants have been developed and improved over the years.

10 years ago people were doing OH F2L at similar speeds as today, but LL was not that developed and usually times were decided by your LL. With the development of OH oriented COLL, more edge control algs and ZBLL OH has improved a lot. Obviously roux is better if you consider table abuse because it has less moves, and people didn't do that before not because it wasn't discovered, but because the hardware at the time wasn't as good.

IMO zz is way better than cfop for OH just because you do all your EO first and it really feels like a method developed for OH, and afaik it was developed for 2H.


----------



## RedstoneTim (May 19, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> I never said that 2H methods are bad for OH at all, I was just saying that methods that are designed specifically for OH can have more potential than methods that were designed for 2H and just happened to be good for OH, and as such got optimized for that. Though maybe 2H methods are the best, but I doubt that.


The reason why I think that trying out 2H methods for OH might be a good idea is that you can come up with really unique ideas. Let's use Roux again: If we have a close look, LSE is actually really good for OH. It's a low movecount way to finish the last remaining pieces without many algorithms, unlike methods such as ZZ which require hundreds to be that efficient. The only issue is that M moves seem to be undoable for OH, so anyone trying to create a good OH method would immediately discard that idea because that couldn't possibly be fast. With table abuse, however, LSE can reach 5-6 tps (source).
I'm not saying that the only good OH method can come from a 2H method, but rather that stuff you might not even consider can turn out to be revolutionary, so a lot that might seem bad should still be tried out.



maticuber said:


> In general good 2H methods have the lowest move count possible that's also easy to recognize, and guess what, that's also pretty good for OH. You obviously want to optimize the moves for OH, but F2L has always been good for OH, and LL variants have been developed and improved over the years.


For 2H, very high tps can be reached, so methods usually focus on ergonomics rather than movecount. To keep up the high tps, one also needs to have very fast recognition times. For OH, on the other hand, tps can't be as high and here, low movecount is more important than with 2H, while recognition times can be a bit longer due to not being required to keep up the high tps. That means that your average 2H method (like CFOP) won't be that great for OH.



maticuber said:


> IMO zz is way better than cfop for OH just because you do all your EO first and it really feels like a method developed for OH, and afaik it was developed for 2H.


While ZZ is probably better than CFOP for OH, it's still not ideal due to the constant z rotations. (Z rotations aren't that bad, but they still take some time and kinda interrupt your flow.)


----------



## maticuber (May 19, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> The reason why I think that trying out 2H methods for OH might be a good idea is that you can come up with really unique ideas. Let's use Roux again: If we have a close look, LSE is actually really good for OH. It's a low movecount way to finish the last remaining pieces without many algorithms, unlike methods such as ZZ which require hundreds to be that efficient. The only issue is that M moves seem to be undoable for OH, so anyone trying to create a good OH method would immediately discard that idea because that couldn't possibly be fast. With table abuse, however, LSE can reach 5-6 tps (source).
> I'm not saying that the only good OH method can come from a 2H method, but rather that stuff you might not even consider can turn out to be revolutionary, so a lot that might seem bad should still be tried out.



I agree that LSE is really efficient, but ZZ can have really fast LL with just COLL+ 2gen EPLL, sure you can learn full ZBLL and it might be more beneficial in OH than it is in 2H.



RedstoneTim said:


> For 2H, very high tps can be reached, so methods usually focus on ergonomics rather than movecount. To keep up the high tps, one also needs to have very fast recognition times. For OH, on the other hand, tps can't be as high and here, low movecount is more important than with 2H, while recognition times can be a bit longer due to not being required to keep up the high tps. That means that your average 2H method (like CFOP) won't be that great for OH.



I heard those same arguments more than 10 years ago when I started doing OH, and back in that era the 2H tps were lower than today's OH. It wasn't true back then, and it's not true today. People already have 6+tps with cfop in OH.



RedstoneTim said:


> While ZZ is probably better than CFOP for OH, it's still not ideal due to the constant z rotations. (Z rotations aren't that bad, but they still take some time and kinda interrupt your flow.)



Yes, but it's way faster than doing any other move/rotation other than RU (or table abuse MU I guess).


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 19, 2020)

Waterman could be good, because after CLL, the cube is RrUM.


----------



## brr_ya (May 20, 2020)

In my opinion, I don't think that the "optimal" OH has been invented yet. For example, TH solving had been around for much longer than OH solving. Even TH started with Corners First and Petrus because people just didn't have enough experience with the cube the invent the Cross or F2B. I mean, I know a lot of y'all are method developers, and would you guys have been able to think to make an cross from absolute scratch? Like how pre-historic humans made the wheel. It's simple to us but not to them. I argue that the same thing is happening now. All these so called "OH optimized methods" are just basically putting together things that are known to us like EO and CP. Like people didn't even know what EO was when it first started. I say that if people are as motivated as now to develop a new OH method, we'll discover something new like, whatever, and CFOP for OH will seem prehistoric similar to how we see people who hunt with bow and arrows.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

brr_ya said:


> In my opinion, I don't think that the "optimal" OH has been invented yet. For example, TH solving had been around for much longer than OH solving. Even TH started with Corners First and Petrus because people just didn't have enough experience with the cube the invent the Cross or F2B. I mean, I know a lot of y'all are method developers, and would you guys have been able to think to make an cross from absolute scratch? Like how pre-historic humans made the wheel. It's simple to us but not to them. I argue that the same thing is happening now. All these so called "OH optimized methods" are just basically putting together things that are known to us like EO and CP. Like people didn't even know what EO was when it first started. I say that if people are as motivated as now to develop a new OH method, we'll discover something new like, whatever, and CFOP for OH will seem prehistoric similar to how we see people who hunt with bow and arrows.


I'm not sure that that is possible because there already are methods that exist that have lower movecounts and are very difficult to understand. But they are not feasible because the amount of mental energy needed to use them is very high and nobody can think that fast.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

I think ZZ-Roux is probably the best method for speedsolving because of the very low movecount using STM and the intuitive block building aspect.
with normal Roux coming in next, and CFOP being a close third with, ZZ dead last.

Edit: I meant to edit my original post oops.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> I think ZZ-Roux is probably the best method for speedsolving because of the very low movecount using STM and the intuitive block building aspect.
> with normal Roux coming in next, and CFOP being a close third with, ZZ dead last.
> 
> Edit: I meant to edit my original post oops.


Can you explain ZZ-Roux? Couldn't find resources.

EDIT: Ohhhh is that LEOR?


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

brr_ya said:


> In my opinion, I don't think that the "optimal" OH has been invented yet. For example, TH solving had been around for much longer than OH solving. Even TH started with Corners First and Petrus because people just didn't have enough experience with the cube the invent the Cross or F2B. I mean, I know a lot of y'all are method developers, and would you guys have been able to think to make an cross from absolute scratch? Like how pre-historic humans made the wheel. It's simple to us but not to them. I argue that the same thing is happening now. All these so called "OH optimized methods" are just basically putting together things that are known to us like EO and CP. Like people didn't even know what EO was when it first started. I say that if people are as motivated as now to develop a new OH method, we'll discover something new like, whatever, and CFOP for OH will seem prehistoric similar to how we see people who hunt with bow and arrows.



CFOP is as old as petrus and corner first, it was invented in the 80s, and it's actually a really bad but with all the optimizations that it was and all the development over the years it's an OK method now. Just think about the amount of algs and tricks that you have to learn in order to be sub-10 with it (2H).



NevEr_QeyX said:


> I think ZZ-Roux is probably the best method for speedsolving because of the very low movecount using STM and the intuitive block building aspect.
> with normal Roux coming in next, and CFOP being a close third with, ZZ dead last.
> 
> Edit: I meant to edit my original post oops.



ZZ is a lot better than CFOP for OH solving, and roux is only viable because of table abuse.

CFOP has a lot of really bad LL cases for OH, meanwhile ZZ is really nice with COLL+EPLL, also F2L is worse than ZZ block building.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> Just think about the amount of algs and tricks that you have to learn in order to be sub-10 with it (2H).


I don't use a bunch of algs and tricks and I am sub 10, I just learned how to solve F2L efficiently and practiced slow solves to improve lookahead.


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I don't use a bunch of algs and tricks and I am sub 10, I just learned how to solve F2L efficiently and practiced slow solves to improve lookahead.



Efficient F2L is nothing but a bunch of tricks and algs, there are at least 41 F2L cases, and you probably know them from different angles. Even if you didn't learn a single alg for them you still drilled F2L and you do use algs for it, plust at least 78 algs for LL.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> Efficient F2L is nothing but a bunch of tricks and algs, there are at least 41 F2L cases, and you probably know them from different angles. Even if you didn't learn a single alg for them you still drilled F2L and you do use algs for it, plust at least 78 algs for LL.


I think if anything methods like Roux would require more tricks to be sub 10 because it is more intuitive, which means that there are more possible you can get in F2B.


----------



## PetraPine (May 20, 2020)

Petrus is an underated method for OH because the effieciency and fingertricks, not as good as zz i think because rotations but better than cfop.

Prev


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Can you explain ZZ-Roux? Couldn't find resources.


It's Roux start, you solve the DF and DB edges while orienting edges and then finish with ZBLL


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

My point is that CFOP is a bad method, you need to learn and drill hundreds of cases and the algs are really long and not really good for OH.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

I honestly don't know whether CFOP or roux is easier to get sub 10 with and it would be very hard to test it out. For CFOP, you would have to optimize regrips and lookahead more than Roux but for Roux you probably have to be more familiar with the cube and the blockbuilding.


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> It's Roux start, you solve the DF and DB edges while orienting edges and then finish with ZBLL



how's that better than zz? I'm genuinely intrigued because doing EO first will optimize the block building for OH a lot.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> My point is that CFOP is a bad method, you need to learn and drill hundreds of cases and the algs are really long and not really good for OH.


How is CFOP a *BAD* method when it has all the world records for NXNs*?*


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> My point is that CFOP is a bad method, you need to learn and drill hundreds of cases and the algs are really long and not really good for OH.


Hundreds? last time I checked only OLL and PLL existed (ever heard of ZBLL? I hear it's good for LL optimization)


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> How is CFOP a *BAD* method when it has all the world records for NXNs*?*


For OH he means, it's not bad for any event but there's no OH for anything other than 3x3 @Micah Morrison



maticuber said:


> how's that better than zz? I'm genuinely intrigued because doing EO first will optimize the block building for OH a lot.


Because unless you do CP at the beginning of every solve you will NOT get 2Gen solutions every solve. Also EO is a little wonky with the F and B moves (not that cross is terribly better, it still is but not by much) So OLL is better for ZZ but unless you use COLL you have the same PLL. On top of that, CFOP's moveset is good for OH if you use nice solutions


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

I understand when people think Roux is better for one-handed (I think Roux probably has more potential) and that Kian may or may not have an 8.72 ao1000 but you can't say CFOP is *BAD* method when it has official world records for 2H and OH.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> It's Roux start, you solve the DF and DB edges while orienting edges and then finish with ZBLL


Ohhh LEOR.


maticuber said:


> how's that better than zz? I'm genuinely intrigued because doing EO first will optimize the block building for OH a lot.


FB definitely isn't OH optimized, but the rest is rRUM.


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> How is CFOP a *BAD* method when it has all the world records for NXNs*?*



because is optimized for 2H, not for OH, and it has almost 40 years of development, not even 10 years ago half the std OLL/PLL were different.



NevEr_QeyX said:


> Hundreds? last time I checked only OLL and PLL existed (ever heard of ZBLL? I hear it's good for LL optimization)



F2L, in order to be decent with cfop you have to learn F2L from multiple angles, that adds a lot of algs, also vanilla OLL/PLL is 78 algs, but you can go crazy with cfop variants, like zbll as you said.


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> For OH he means, it's not bad but there's no OH for anything other than 3x3
> 
> 
> Because unless you do CP at the beginning of every solve you will NOT get 2Gen solutions every solve. Also EO is a little wonky with the F and B moves (not that cross is terribly better, it still is but not by much) So OLL is better for ZZ but unless you use COLL you have the same PLL.



OH zz absolutely needs COLL, but doing EO line is way way better than cross+vanilla F2L.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> because is optimized for 2H, not for OH, and it has almost 40 years of development, not even 10 years ago half the std OLL/PLL were different.
> 
> 
> 
> F2L, in order to be decent with cfop you have to learn F2L from multiple angles, that adds a lot of algs, also vanilla OLL/PLL is 78 algs, but you can go crazy with cfop variants, like zbll as you said.


But no one thinks of F2L as algorithms and if you add COLL it's still barely over 100 algs


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> F2L, in order to be decent with cfop you have to learn F2L from multiple angles, that adds a lot of algs, also vanilla OLL/PLL is 78 algs, but you can go crazy with cfop variants, like zbll as you said.


*Intuitive F2L exists*
Am I a joke to you?


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> OH zz absolutely needs COLL, but doing EO line is way way better than cross+vanilla F2L.


Prove it then. Do EO and then EO line and I will do cross. We will see who is faster. stackmat only come back with an average of 50 and I will do the same


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> But no one thinks of F2L as algorithms and if you add COLL it's still barely over 100 algs



but they are algs, and you have to drill them. 3style can be learned without algorithms, but they still are algs.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> but they are algs, and you have to drill them. 3style can be learned without algorithms, but they still are algs.


Uhhh... have you ever used CFOP? Literally any reasonably good solver you ask won't say they are algs. You could say the same thing for the blocks on ZZ. "Oh no it's just block building with basic turning limiting your speed" And CFOP F2L is just more limited block building, never are you ever using anything remotely close to algs unless you are a new solver and can't get your head around piece movement.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> but they are algs, and you have to drill them. 3style can be learned without algorithms, but they still are algs.


Yes, I love to drill algs I don't know.

EDIT: I think drilling intuitive algs is called "practicing".


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> Prove it then. Do EO and then EO line and I will do cross. We will see who is faster. stackmat only come back with an average of 50 and I will do the same


C'mon, prove the validity of your arguments or no one will take them seriously


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> Prove it then. Do EO and then EO line and I will do cross. We will see who is faster.



EOline is one step, and you'll beat me just because I'm trash at OH (20s avg), but I got those times back in 2010.




NevEr_QeyX said:


> Uhhh... have you ever used CFOP? Literally any reasonably good solver you ask won't say they are algs. You could say the same thing for the blocks on ZZ



The fact that you don't think about them as algs doesn't mean they aren't, you can identify all the possible cases from different angles and execute an alg to solve it efficiently, let's be real, nobody uses intuitive F2L while speedsolving past a certain point. Anyone sub 15 has their F2L drilled and do it without thinking.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> because is optimized for 2H, not for OH, and it has almost 40 years of development, not even 10 years ago half the std OLL/PLL were different.


Roux is a bad method because it was optimized for 2H. I don't actually think that, but that shows how flawed your argument is. Just because a method was made for 2H doesn't mean it can't be used for OH.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> EOline is one step, and you'll beat me just because I'm trash at OH (20s avg), but I got those times back in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But I thought since ZZ was sooooo much better of course you would have an edge.

And no, F2L is algless ask anyone except @WarriorCatCuber F2L HAS NO ALGS,

I am sub 10 and yes I have all the F2L cases locked into muscle memory. But that doesn't make them algs!


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> let's be real, nobody uses intuitive F2L while speedsolving past a certain point. Anyone sub 15 has their F2L drilled and do it without thinking.


So no one sees a problem with that sentence?


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> Roux is a bad method because it was optimized for 2H. I don't actually think that, but that shows how flawed your argument is. Just because a method was made for 2H doesn't mean it can't be used for OH.



roux is only good due to table abuse, and I do think that roux is way better than cfop for both OH and 2H.




NevEr_QeyX said:


> But I thought since ZZ was sooooo much better of course you would have an edge



I don't know your times but I'm guessing you are way better than me, but that proves nothing.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> I don't know your times but I'm guessing you are way better than me, but that proves nothing.


We are a similar speed, I am sub 19 and you average 20

I agree Roux is better than CFOP but ZZ is even worse than those


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 20, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> We are a similar speed, I am sub 19 and you average 20


I think he averages 20 two handed.

EDIT: never mind, I'm stupid, I read his post. He said OH.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> roux is only good due to table abuse, and I do think that roux is way better than cfop for both OH and 2H


"Way better" is definitely an exaggeration. I think Roux probably has slightly more potential for OH and the two methods are probably almost equal for 3x3.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> The fact that you don't think about them as algs doesn't mean they aren't


The fact that something isn't x doesn't mean it's not x.


maticuber said:


> Anyone sub 15 has their F2L drilled and do it without thinking.


I love just drilling those Petrus 2x2x2 algs.


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> We are a similar speed, I am sub 19 and you average 20



my OH avg was 20 in 2011, with cfop, I'm just back into cubing and after seeing how zz works (I didn't knew the method back then) and analyzing it it's clear that it's a better method for OH, EOLine is similar to cross, block building with zz is way better due to the way it works, and you can go straight into COLL+EPLL which is way better than OLL+PLL for OH.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> my OH avg was 20 in 2011, with cfop, I'm just back into cubing and after seeing how zz works (I didn't knew the method back then) and analyzing it it's clear that it's a better method for OH, EOLine is similar to cross, block building with zz is way better due to the way it works, and you can go straight into COLL+EPLL which is way better than OLL+PLL for OH.


You do realize you still gotta drill those intuitive F2L algs?


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> You do realize you still gotta drill those intuitive F2L algs?



do you think that Max or Felix intuitively solve F2L in competitions? they must have a really big brain.




Micah Morrison said:


> "Way better" is definitely an exaggeration. I think Roux probably has slightly more potential for OH and the two methods are probably almost equal for 3x3.



you also have to take into account the amount of people who uses both methods and how developed they are, we do know that both methods are capable of sub-6 2H and sub 10 OH but which method makes it easier? we do know that sub 20 with cfop is easy, it has been proven many many times, but sub 20 OH with cfop is not as easy, sub 10 OH with cfop is something that only a few people have achieved, and how many have tried? it's definitely not easy. Maybe if roux was more popular, more people could be sub-10 OH.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

My OH rankings:
ZB-Roux (LEOR?)
Layout: starts with good intuitive block building and finishes with solving the DF and DB edges while orienting LL edges, ZBLL is used after to solve the rest.
Pros: uses R, U, r, M and F moves for the majority of the solve. has low movecount. Doesn't use that many M moves.
Cons: ZBLL is hard to learn, FB is not very ergonomic,

Roux
Layout: Starts with good intuitive block building, orient and permute last layer edges in one ergonomic alg solve the rest of the cube with M and U
Pros: uses R, U, r, F and M for most of the solve, 
Cons: uses many M moves for the end of the solve. And has a higher movecount that ZB-Roux/LEOR

CFOP
Layout: Solve a cross, insert four F2L pairs, OLL, PLL
Pros: F2L is easy and will have a maximum of 4 rotations if done correctly, OLL and PLL are relatively easy to execute quickly, If you learn ZBLL/ COLL your solves will be faster.
Cons: Cross is the least ergonomic part of the solve with F and B moves being used not uncommonly, rotations are bad (but again maximum of 4), OLL is not ergonomic for OH. Highest movecount

ZZ
Layout: Do random moves at the beginning always containing an F or B, Solve DF and DB, solve the left block, Solve the right block, COLL, PLL
Pros: Second block uses R U, EPLL if you know COLL. 3rd highest movecount.
Cons: Uses RUL which is pretty bad for OH, EO line takes longer and is less ergonomic than cross.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> do you think that Max or Felix intuitively solve F2L in competitions? they must have a really big brain.


Yes they do in fact solve F2L without algs. Everyone does ASK LITERALLY ANYONE WHO USES CFOP COMPETENTLY. Where did you get the idea that people use algs for F2L?


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

@maticuber You're either an idiot, trolling, or had a very sorry understanding of CFOP. COLL isn't as good as OCLL->PLL for ZZ, F2L isn't algs, table abuse is allowed so reliance on it doesn't make Roux bad, you only need 2LLL to be really good at CFOP, you have no proof that Roux is easier to be sub-10 OH so your argument that few CFOPers have achieved it is moot, just because you can do F2L cases quickly doesn't mean you learned algs for them, Max, "Feli*x*" Matts, Patrick, and any other CFOPer you want to bring up doesn't know many algs for F2L but simply have their intuitive solutions into their muscle memory from doing them thousands of times, *And please shut up and do some research before making these completely false statements*



NevEr_QeyX said:


> My OH rankings:
> ZB-Roux (LEOR?)
> Layout: starts with good intuitive block building and finishes with solving the DF and DB edges while orienting LL edges, ZBLL is used after to solve the rest.
> Pros: uses R, U, r, M and F moves for the majority of the solve. has low movecount. Doesn't use that many M moves.
> ...



ZB-Roux is different from LEOR

ZB-Roux - F2B, EOStripe, ZBLL
LEOR - FB, EOStripe, SB, ZBLL


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Feli*x*


lol didn't catch that


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 20, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> Pros: has slightly higher movecount than ZB-Roux/LEOR





NevEr_QeyX said:


> Cons: And has a higher movecount that ZB-Roux/LEOR


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

From the poll "loer" XD


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

ProStar said:


> From the poll "loer" XD


I saw that too hehe.

Maticuber.exe has stopped working


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I love just drilling those Petrus 2x2x2 algs.



You haven't lived till you've tried algorithmic F2B


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 20, 2020)

ProStar said:


> *And please shut up and do some research before making these completely false statements*


You are being kind mean here, @maticuber is just debating and is not being an idiot.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> You are being kind mean here, @maticuber is just debating and is not being an idiot.


I do agree that the name calling was uncalled for but I think that Maticuber isn't very familiar with CFOP or Roux or anything outside what he's learned about beginner ZZ


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> What method is the best for OH?


Can you add ZB-Roux?


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> You are being kind mean here, @maticuber is just debating and is not being an idiot.



He thinks F2L is 100% algorithmic, ZZ sucks without COLL, using table abuse(which is legal) makes Roux bad, and is making false and illogical arguments. While it may have been harsh, I don't think I said anything I said was untrue.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

ProStar said:


> He thinks F2L is 100% algorithmic, ZZ sucks without COLL, using table abuse(which is legal) makes Roux bad, and is making false and illogical arguments. While it may have been harsh, I don't think I said anything I said was untrue.


Unnecessary and untrue are different things


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> Unnecessary and untrue are different things



I am completely aware of that, but while truth can be determined relatively easily and somewhat objectively in this case, whether what I said was over the top is completely subjective


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

I do agree that my knowledge is kinda "out of date", but I do think that roux is better than cfop even tho I don't use it myself.
ZZ in paper looks really good and it fixes the problems of cfop for OH like the last layer, when I competed my OH OLL+PLL was really really bad, I'm talking about 8-10s F2L into a 10s LL. I'm just experimenting with the method but I'm getting a bunch of low 20s with it, even tho I didn't practice for almost 10 years and I'm just learning ZZ. I remember a bunch of times when I had a sub 8 F2L OH just to end up with a dot OLL and E perm.

COLL+EPLL with less than 2 weeks into it is already at 5 to 8s for me depending on the case, a lot better than OLL+PLL even considering the times when I practiced a lot (sub-20 with 2010 hardware is not easy).

also Felix is the normal way of spelling that name in my native language, I typed that without thinking (you can say it was an algorithm).

In the other hand F2L is algorithmic, intuitive F2L is what,10 cases? but after that you end up learning tricks and algs for most cases anyway, but you do it so sporadically that you don't realize.

Also table abuse wasn't a thing back then, so for me it's weird to see how widely accepted it is now, it's kinda weird to need a table to solve a cube one handed. I don't think roux is bad for OH, I'm just saying that table abuse makes it viable, if you remove table abuse Roux is not viable at all.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> but sub 20 OH with cfop is not as easy, sub 10 OH with cfop is something that only a few people have achieved, and how many have tried? it's definitely not easy. Maybe if roux was more popular, more people could be sub-10 OH.


I use CFOP and have never been super serious about OH and I average right around 20 and I have small hands.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> I do agree that my knowledge is kinda "out of date", but I do think that roux is better than cfop even tho I don't use it myself.
> ZZ in paper looks really good and it fixes the problems of cfop for OH like the last layer, when I competed my OH OLL+PLL was really really bad, I'm talking about 8-10s F2L into a 10s LL. I'm just experimenting with the method but I'm getting a bunch of low 20s with it, even tho I didn't practice for almost 10 years and I'm just learning ZZ. I remember a bunch of times when I had a sub 8 F2L OH just to end up with a dot OLL and E perm.
> 
> COLL+EPLL with less than 2 weeks into it is already at 5 to 8s for me depending on the case, a lot better than OLL+PLL even considering the times when I practiced a lot (sub-20 with 2010 hardware is not easy).
> ...


No one argued about the validity of Roux being better than CFOP for OH but when you tell me that F2L is algorithmic I'm sorry but I can't take your arguments seriously when you don't know what your are talking about.
Also misspelling Felik's name is common and understandable if you've only ever heard it spoken


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> I do agree that my knowledge is kinda "out of date", but I do think that roux is better than cfop even tho I don't use it myself.
> ZZ in paper looks really good and it fixes the problems of cfop for OH like the last layer, when I competed my OH OLL+PLL was really really bad, I'm talking about 8-10s F2L into a 10s LL. I'm just experimenting with the method but I'm getting a bunch of low 20s with it, even tho I didn't practice for almost 10 years and I'm just learning ZZ. I remember a bunch of times when I had a sub 8 F2L OH just to end up with a dot OLL and E perm.



That comes down to drilling LL cases, which actually are algs



maticuber said:


> COLL+EPLL with less than 2 weeks into it is already at 5 to 8s for me depending on the case, a lot better than OLL+PLL even considering the times when I practiced a lot (sub-20 with 2010 hardware is not easy).



Because you have drilled those algs



maticuber said:


> also Felix is the normal way of spelling that name in my native language, I typed that without thinking (you can say it was an algorithm).



I figured it was something of a sort, my computer autocorrected to Felix for a while



maticuber said:


> In the other hand F2L is algorithmic, intuitive F2L is what,10 cases? but after that you end up learning tricks and algs for most cases anyway, but you do it so sporadically that you don't realize.



I've learned about 5 algs for F2L. Otherwise, I've come up with everything on my own intuitively. I don't learn "tricks and algs", I come up with my own intuitive ways to solve them. What you are referring to with intuitive F2L being 10 cases or whatever is *Beginner F2L*. In beginner's F2L, it's very basic and you will set up one case into another, hence the name Beginner. Advanced F2L is more advanced and doesn't require setting up one case into another but solving things efficiently, but still doesn't require any algorithms. You may learn tricks that help you, but you won't learn algorithms. The reason people can do the cases so fast is because they've done an intuitive solution enough times to have it implanted into their muscle memory. This is not an algorithm. Algorithm is not another word for habit, it is a set sequence of turns that will solve a certain case. Algorithms must be memorized and not figured out, unlike F2L.



maticuber said:


> Also table abuse wasn't a thing back then, so for me it's weird to see how widely accepted it is now, it's kinda weird to need a table to solve a cube one handed. I don't think roux is bad for OH, I'm just saying that table abuse makes it viable, if you remove table abuse Roux is not viable at all.



Table abuse is clearly allowed by the regulations, and saying that using it makes a method less viable is like saying someone's times aren't legit because they used a stickerless cube. I understand that it seems weird coming from when you cubed, but it's legit, allowed, and not going anywhere.


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> No one argued about the validity of Roux being better than CFOP for OH but when you tell me that F2L is algorithmic I'm sorry but I can't take your arguments seriously when you don't know what your are talking about.



I guess it depends on what you call intuitive F2L and algorithmic F2L.

(U R U' R') U' (R U' R' U) (R U' R') is not really an intuitive way to solve that pair, most people learn the alg for it, same with a lot of other cases, same with stuff like f R' f' for example.




ProStar said:


> That comes down to drilling LL cases, which actually are algs
> Because you have drilled those algs



I definitively drilled the algs back in the day, Antoine has a really good video explaining why COLL+EPLL is better than OLL+PLL for OH.



ProStar said:


> I've learned about 5 algs for F2L. Otherwise, I've come up with everything on my own intuitively. I don't learn "tricks and algs", I come up with my own intuitive ways to solve them. What you are referring to with intuitive F2L being 10 cases or whatever is *Beginner F2L*. In beginner's F2L, it's very basic and you will set up one case into another, hence the name Beginner. Advanced F2L is more advanced and doesn't require setting up one case into another but solving things efficiently, but still doesn't require any algorithms. You may learn tricks that help you, but you won't learn algorithms. The reason people can do the cases so fast is because they've done an intuitive solution enough times to have it implanted into their muscle memory. This is not an algorithm. Algorithm is not another word for habit, it is a set sequence of turns that will solve a certain case. Algorithms must be memorized and not figured out, unlike F2L.




Why an algorithm can't be figured out? A perms are commutators, F and J perm are T perm conjugates (I think that's the word, not sure about the english term but you know what I'm talking about), MU EPLLs are intuitive, OLLs can be figured out just by experimenting with sune+T cases for example.

In the other hand, F2L is highly intuitive, but you still use algorithms for them, an algorithm is a sequence of moves that do something in the cube, it might cycle 3 pieces, or orient 2 pieces, or permute 3 pieces, etc. By that definition F2L is just a bunch of algorithms that needs to be learned. The fact that they are easy to figure out, practice and remember doesn't mean they are not algorithms. I know a lot of people, myself included, who didn't find the most speed efficient way of solving some F2L cases, if that ever happens you just look for an algorithm for it, and said algorithm might've been found by intuition by other people.

EDIT: I do agree with you in the other points, specially table abuse, at some point using the table was considered a DNF, but then again, a pop gave you an extra attempt.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

Maticuber.com is not responding

LOL right as I say that.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> I guess it depends on what you call intuitive F2L and algorithmic F2L.
> 
> (U R U' R') U' (R U' R' U) (R U' R') is not really an intuitive way to solve that pair, most people learn the alg for it, same with a lot of other cases, same with stuff like f R' f' for example.
> 
> ...


I'm done arguing. All you are doing is restating your initial arguments no matter how many times we explain it to you.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

Excerpts from Quora:

Andy Lee, B.S. Computer Science, McGill University (2023)
Answered Jan 7, 2020


_Ok, so for Regular CFOP, in total there are 57 OLLs and 21 PLLs making it 78 algorithms._
For Cross and F2L however, there are way too many “algorithms” to count. For F2L, there are way too many ways of pairing up two pieces and inserting them, not to mention all of the more advanced tricks such as keyhole and x-cross.
For this reason, *F2L should be approached intuitively and not algorithmically.*
However. if you were to put an upper bound on the number of possible algorithms for F2L I should estimate it to be ~150–200.
96 views

Kilua Nakaba
Answered May 19, 2020


Well,
There aren't specific algorithms for F2L… Personally, I learned ‘intuitive F2L’ which is actually a better way to learn F2L according to me.
There are various tutorials for intuitive F2L on YouTube, Go ahead explore.
2 views

Sai Teja P, Rubik's cube enthusiast. Solves in less than 20 sec. Can solve blindfolded.
Updated April 5, 2017

I peraonally like Intuitive F2L. That is one of the reasons I enjoy solving the Rubik's cube.
Although intuitive F2L also consists of algorithms, but you are the one who is formulating the algorithms, so I don't think they can be separated from algorithmic F2L. Since the F2L part isn't so difficult compared to OLL and PLL, you too might enjoy it too.
When it comes to algorithmic F2L, learning can be quicker than intuitive F2L. I have been formulating my F2L algorithms since a long time, but still I have a few cases to solve!!
Although I have seen several F2L algorithms online to compare with my algorithms. They are far more complicated to me than my own algorithms. So I suggest you to try intuitively, but if you can't formulate them don't hesitate to search for algorithms online.
Happy cubing.









How many algorithms would there be in full F2L?


Answer (1 of 11): Ok, so for Regular CFOP, in total there are 57 OLLs and 21 PLLs making it 78 algorithms. For Cross and F2L however, there are way too many “algorithms” to count. For F2L, there are way too many ways of pairing up two pieces and inserting them, not to mention all of the more adv...




www.quora.com





Not to mention the entire thread dedicated to this









[Help Thread] - F2L Intuitive vs. Algorithm Solving


I've been cubing for a few days, and have gotten my beginner's method solves to sub-1:30 with relative ease. In the effort to further improve my times, I researched speedcubing methods and decided to pursue Fridrich for the time being. When doing the beginner method and solving the...




www.speedsolving.com





A little unrelated but @maticuber joined yesterday.


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> I'm done arguing. All you are doing is restating your initial arguments no matter how many times we explain it to you.



I guess we'll never agree on that particular topic just because your definition of an algorithm is different than mine, which is fine, we can call them "F2L cases" if you want.

My original point was that cfop is a really bad method that has been around for a long time and it has been optimized with both hardware and algorithms/better F2L cases. cfop was around when the 1982 WC happened, but corner first was a better method back then, maybe it was the hardware that didn't allow fingertricks and bad algorithms. cfop is the way it is now just because there are thousands of people who worked on it over the years, just look for examples solves from 2010 and see the OLL/PLL algorithms and the way people solved F2L. No other method have had that kind of development.




NevEr_QeyX said:


> Excerpts from Quora:
> 
> Andy Lee, B.S. Computer Science, McGill University (2023)
> Answered Jan 7, 2020
> ...



That's what I'm saying, F2L is just a bunch of algorithms that are easy to figure out, learn and practice, but as I said before, I'll talk about it as "F2L cases" just so you guys understand what I'm saying.


----------



## HaHaHaHeeHeeHee (May 20, 2020)

ProStar said:


> "Feli*x*" Matts, Patrick, and any other CFOPer you want to bring up doesn't know many algs for F2L but simply have their intuitive solutions into their muscle memory from doing them thousands of times, *And please shut up and do some research before making these completely false statements*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if we're gonna go full on sicko mode with corrections then @ProStar here is a funny joke for you








Mats Valk - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





and also I think that zz and cfop are equal in oh (this is completely opinion based- I am trash at zz I only have one sub 20 single 2h)
but roux is again better than cfop if you look at the proportionality to 2h times

and in the topic of algorithmic f2l most f2l "algs" are just the same way that you would do it intuitively, but I mean there are some cases that people like jayden Mcneill show in their videos that I'm pretty sure are either computer generated or made by someone with a brain the size of a mixer truck.

also, stuff like multislotting (again, disclaimer, I do not implement this into my solves, and I never did, since I use Roux lol) I'm pretty sure is algorithmic

and for separate methods for OH, I think thats quite stupid, since that raises the question of method neutrality on 3x3, since other than the turning barriers, OH is still solving a 3x3 Rubiks Cube- so if you're gonna use a separate method that is "optimized" for OH, then why not just use both Roux and CFOP for 2h and use the most out of scrambles by being method neutral with the two currently fastest 3x3 methods. So since method neutrality has already been discarded as not feasible, I think that a "optimal OH method" is not a good option.

correct me if im wrong pls


----------



## HaHaHaHeeHeeHee (May 20, 2020)

I love this thread its only been like a week and theres already 11 pages lmao
method debates are fun (although they do get quite heated at times)


----------



## mukerflap (May 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Ohhh LEOR.
> 
> FB definitely isn't OH optimized, but the rest is rRUM.


Yes it is B moves are not bad in OH, you just dont know how to do them. RUrMFB is good


----------



## mukerflap (May 20, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> It's Roux start, you solve the DF and DB edges while orienting edges and then finish with ZBLL


You underestimate how bad eoDFDB is


----------



## Username: Username: (May 20, 2020)

YruRu users be like :
"Hey Roux!"
"your chair in the big three is dusty here let me take it" sneakily

Roux users be like :
"Why use YruRu?"
next day :
Roux users :
"I'm changing my mind, you succ Briggs" not acknowledging the method and both users arguing

Petrus users be like :
"you all ok? you want me to call mental hospital?"


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 20, 2020)

so i have just read through this thread and so many of you are wrong But first I need to ask WTF is loer.
ok so f2l is Algs if they weren’t algs you would have to think about each move and how it works. The only difference between oll and pll algs and f2l algs are that most people are too stupid to come up with oll and pll algs.
Secondly coll epll is far better than ocll pll for oh ask any good one handed solver and they will agree.
and finally zz is much better than cfop for oh it has lower movecount is more ergonomic and has no rotation.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 20, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> How is CFOP a *BAD* method when it has all the world records for NXNs*?*


It doesn’t have the 2x2 Wr so E.G. is better than CFOP lol


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 20, 2020)

HaHaHaHeeHeeHee said:


> also, stuff like multislotting (again, disclaimer, I do not implement this into my solves, and I never did, since I use Roux lol) I'm pretty sure is algorithmic


multislotting is definitely not algorithmic, it is very intuitive.

Also, why are you guys being very harsh to @maticuber? He is correct, you do use algorithms to solve F2L, but you intuitively come up with those algs.


----------



## Etotheipi (May 20, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> It doesn’t have the 2x2 Wr so E.G. is better than CFOP lol


Getting a 4-mover is a better method than CFOP since it has the 2x2 WR.


----------



## ep2 (May 20, 2020)

Yeah, the only difference between intuitive and algorithms is semantics. Intuitive, to me, just means you can easily work out an algorithm on the fly(but eventually they become muscle memory like algs). The only difference is number of moves and ability to see that number of moves ahead. Encouraging people to do things intuitively, helps people have a better understand the way the cubes work, and helps you fix mistakes and learn new algs.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> do you think that Max or Felix intuitively solve F2L in competitions? they must have a really big brain.


Yeah, they have 400 IQ. I tried doing intuitive once, but couldn't manage. I just ended using algorithmic because I'm too small brain.


NevEr_QeyX said:


> Cons: Uses RUL which is pretty bad for OH, EO line takes longer and is less ergonomic than cross.


You do FB, then do a z, then finish off F2L, then do a z'.


ProStar said:


> @maticuber You're either an idiot, trolling, or had a very sorry understanding of CFOP. COLL isn't as good as OCLL->PLL for ZZ, F2L isn't algs, table abuse is allowed so reliance on it doesn't make Roux bad, you only need 2LLL to be really good at CFOP, you have no proof that Roux is easier to be sub-10 OH so your argument that few CFOPers have achieved it is moot, just because you can do F2L cases quickly doesn't mean you learned algs for them, Max, "Feli*x*" Matts, Patrick, and any other CFOPer you want to bring up doesn't know many algs for F2L but simply have their intuitive solutions into their muscle memory from doing them thousands of times, *And please shut up and do some research before making these completely false statements*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please don't pull out the stupid card yet. Also, @NevEr_QeyX ZZ-Roux and LEOR are the same, just not ZB-Roux.


maticuber said:


> ZZ in paper looks really good and it fixes the problems of cfop for OH like the last layer, when I competed my OH OLL+PLL was really really bad, I'm talking about 8-10s F2L into a 10s LL.


A lot of people thing that ZZ is worse for OH than it is, but in truth, they're just not doing it right.


maticuber said:


> I guess it depends on what you call intuitive F2L and algorithmic F2L.


There's the correct way, then the incorrect way. Algorithms are things you memorize, while you do intuitive on the spot.


mukerflap said:


> Yes it is B moves are not bad in OH, you just dont know how to do them. RUrMFB is good


Yes, everyone knows that RUrMFB is better than just RUru.



Alright, gonna go drill those intuitive EOStripe algs.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

Even if you're like me and started out with algorithmic f2l, it wasn't anything like learning 41 algs, because they all intuitively made sense. There are some more advanced algs that are less intuitive but almost all f2l "algs" are 8 moves or less and the "algs" that are more than 8 moves are setups to shorter cases


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 20, 2020)

Why does this thread exist? You can get really, really fast with both methods. If one method is better than another, it is not by very much. At the most, you might be half a second faster with one method over another.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (May 20, 2020)

This is my argument for best oh method. I think that cfop is, and the stats say it all. Max Park is easily the number one oh solver in the world, and he uses cfop. So does feliks. Roux is good, but the m moves are akward, so cfop is the best.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 20, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> Why does this thread exist? You can get really, really fast with both methods. If one method is better than another, it is not by very much. At the most, you might be half a second faster with one method over another.


Have you looked at my Quest for sub 20 OH thread? it had like 5 pages of arguing in 1 hour, so someone made this thread so people would stop clogging my quest thread.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> This is my argument for best oh method. I think that cfop is, and the stats say it all. Max Park is easily the number one oh solver in the world, and he uses cfop. So does feliks. Roux is good, but the m moves are akward, so cfop is the best.


that's anecdotal evidence which is dumb in 1982 the top 3 solves used corners first so by your logic corners first is the best method.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 20, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Have you looked at my Quest for sub 20 OH thread? it had like 5 pages of arguing in 1 hour, so someone made this thread so people would stop clogging my quest thread.


lol I forgot about that


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> This is my argument for best oh method. I think that cfop is, and the stats say it all. Max Park is easily the number one oh solver in the world, and he uses cfop. So does feliks. Roux is good, but the m moves are akward, so cfop is the best.


I think Roux might have more potential for OH, and people who advocate for Roux say that Kian has an 8.72 ao1000 but CFOP is certainly viable and one could definitely be world-class with it


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 20, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> that's anecdotal evidence which is dumb in 1982 the top 3 solves used corners first so by your logic corners first is the best method.


Corners first was the fastest at that time, just like CFOP is the fastest in this time.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (May 20, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> that's anecdotal evidence which is dumb in 1982 the top 3 solves used corners first so by your logic corners first is the best method.


In 1982, no one knew what they were doing. We are talking about modern cubers.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (May 20, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> that's anecdotal evidence which is dumb in 1982 the top 3 solves used corners first so by your logic corners first is the best method.


Also what method do you think is best?


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> In 1982, no one knew what they were doing. We are talking about modern cubers.


cubing has only been seriously competitive for 15 years which is nothing compared to most sports. every event still has a huge amount of development and we have barely scratched the surface of the potential that cubers can reach. Also to use a relevant modern example of anecdotal evidence the fastest solver of all time (kian Mansour) uses roux and I know the morrisons are sceptical of his ao1000 but I think he was definitely faster than max and feliks and Patrick and he has no reason to lie about his average.


cringeycuber101 said:


> Also what method do you think is best?


I personally believe leor is the best for oh as it is efficient and ergonomic but of the currently proven methods roux is clearly the best.


----------



## BenChristman1 (May 20, 2020)

I'm very late, but I am planning on learning Roux for OH if I ever decide to care about the event.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 20, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> if I ever decide to care about the event.


Don’t worry, you won’t


----------



## HaHaHaHeeHeeHee (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> This is my argument for best oh method. I think that cfop is, and the stats say it all. Max Park is easily the number one oh solver in the world, and he uses cfop. So does feliks. Roux is good, but the m moves are akward, so cfop is the best.



this is kinda a very funny joke because again- look at the proportionality of times
and on what basis do you say that max park is "easily the best oh solver in the world"- I mean, it's kinda redundant and all, but 
*Kian Mansour* *sub 9 ao1000*
*ROUX*
also, in respect to "Max is the best OH solver in the world- his oh average is only 0.08 secs faster then Kian's OH average
also, Kian kinda quit cubing, as shown by his recent uploads and stuff
f
but still I feel like low movecount is the future of cubing since hardware and fingertricks are still improving, so TPS is an issue that can be easily mitigated


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

HaHaHaHeeHeeHee said:


> also, in respect to "Max is the best OH solver in the world- his oh average is only 0.08 secs faster then Kian's OH average


Max's OH average is 0.12 seconds better than Kian's. Also, most of Kian's official averages are 11's and 12's and then one time he got a 9


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

HaHaHaHeeHeeHee said:


> this is kinda a very funny joke because again- look at the proportionality of times
> and on what basis do you say that max park is "easily the best oh solver in the world"- I mean, it's kinda redundant and all, but
> *Kian Mansour* *sub 9 ao1000*
> *ROUX*
> ...



I'm not sure if this is true or not, but apparently Max uses his 2H algs for OH, if that's true then 2H cfop is better for OH than OH cfop...


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> I'm not sure if this is true or not, but apparently Max uses his 2H algs for OH, if that's true then 2H cfop is better for OH than OH cfop...


Or just that CFOP still has room for improvement in OH.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

the mean of Kian's official averages since his 9.54 (and counting his 9.54) is 11.46, let that sink in, *11.46* ,which I guess is world-class, but not anything unheard of.


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Or just that CFOP still has room for improvement in OH.



That's absolutely true, even after 40 years cfop is constantly evolving, people add new stuff to it, the algs change every once in a while, etc.

There's no "best method" really, it all depends on hardware, regulations and the person. Back in 1982 cfop existed, but the algs were so bad that it had a really high movecount, and people used corner first because it had a better movecount and with the hardware available at the time fingertricks weren't a thing. During the early years of the WCA roux OH wasn't really possible because table abuse was not a thing.


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> the mean of Kian's official averages since his 9.54 (and counting his 9.54) is 11.46, let that sink in, *11.46* ,which in my opinion isn't even world-class.



with a 11.46 avg during the OH finals of the 2019 WC you would've gotten 6th place. Kian got 7th place with a 12.04. You'll also be 33 in the world with that avg. If you compare that to the 3x3 times, it's about a ~6.7 avg, definitively world-class.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 20, 2020)

also kian had the worst nerves ever in fact I heard the reason he quit cubing was because he couldn't deal with the nerves


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> also kian had the worst nerves ever in fact I heard the reason he quit cubing was because he couldn't deal with the nerves



Why are we arguing about Kian's life? @PenguinsDontFly


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> I'm not sure if this is true or not, but apparently Max uses his 2H algs for OH, if that's true then 2H cfop is better for OH than OH cfop...


So because somebody does it a worse way but gets better times, the worse way is better? Makes sense.


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> So because somebody does it a worse way but gets better times, the worse way is better? Makes sense.



I'm just following the logic used before in the thread, if the best avg was done with a particular method, then that method is better. By that logic 2H cfop is absolutely better than OH cfop.


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> I'm just following the logic used before in the thread, if the best avg was done with a particular method, then that method is better. By that logic 2H cfop is absolutely better than OH cfop.



Anyone using that logic is wrong.


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Anyone using that logic is wrong.



I know that, just the fact that someone is really successful with a method doesn't necessarily means that the method is better. Sadly in cubing it's really hard to analyze what's better than cfop because cfop has been optimized and perfected over the last 40 years and most of the world-class speedsolvers have put years into cubing using cfop.

Back in 2009 for example fingetricks, algs and turning style were different, I remember the first person to upload a video with all the PLLs under 1s (Breandan Vallance), that year the WR avg was just above 10s. Feliks got a sub 10 avg the next year, that was a long long time ago and he's still rank 1 in the world, after 10 years practicing the same method, adding more stuff to it, optimizing his solutions, etc.

In order to find a method better than roux/cfop you'll need a lot of people willing to spend many many year optimizing a method, finding the best algs for it, adjusting turning styles, creating a recognition system, etc. Just think about all the people that have worked in cfop over the years to make it a "good" method, we needed a lot of people creating good algs, good recognition methods, finding different ways of solving the last pair to skip OLL, finding different ways of solving OLL to skip PLL, finding hundreds of 1LLL solutions, etc, the list goes on and on.


----------



## HaHaHaHeeHeeHee (May 20, 2020)

kinda sad tho- I wanted to see Kian get the OH wr avg again


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 20, 2020)

HaHaHaHeeHeeHee said:


> kinda sad tho- I wanted to see Kian get the OH wr avg again


yeah its sad that he never go to get his average in comp but I think there will be another roux wr soon


----------



## cringeycuber101 (May 20, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Anyone using that logic is wrong.


No they aren't. It is perfectly reasonable logic.


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> No they aren't. It is perfectly reasonable logic.



No, it's actually completely illogical. Less people use Roux, or ZZ, or LEOR, or ZZRoux, or whatever than CFOP, so of course the times will be worse. You can't have that many people in the top X because there's less Roux(or whatever) users than CFOP users. And one person's times do not show the limit of a method


----------



## Etotheipi (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> No they aren't. It is perfectly reasonable logic.


It really isnt. Saying a similar thing to someone before here, back in the early days of cubing, records were set with CF, but obviously CFOP and Roux and other modern methods are better, but by that logic CF would have been better than CFOP or Roux.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (May 20, 2020)

ProStar said:


> No, it's actually completely illogical. Less people use Roux, or ZZ, or LEOR, or ZZRoux, or whatever than CFOP, so of course the times will be worse. You can't have that many people in the top X because there's less Roux(or whatever) users than CFOP users. And one person's times do not show the limit of a method


less people use it because it is worse.


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> less people use it because it is worse.



Give me objective proof it's worse.


----------



## Etotheipi (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> less people use it because it is worse.


You have no evidense that that is the reason, and cannot assume it blindly, or that they are worse at all.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (May 20, 2020)

I do have evidence, just go look at the best method debate thread.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

maticuber said:


> I'm just following the logic used before in the thread, if the best avg was done with a particular method, then that method is better. By that logic 2H cfop is absolutely better than OH cfop.


Refer to below.


cringeycuber101 said:


> less people use it because it is worse.


Wait wait wait. It's worse because people get less WRs with it, but less people use it, which would explain it, but the *real *reason is that it's worse, meaning less people use it? That makes no sense. The reason less people use it is just because it's newer, and because of that, there are less WRs with it.


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> I do have evidence, just go look at the best method debate thread.



Literally all you've said is that there are minimal top results with it. You're trying to get me stuck in circular reasoning, but it isn't working. Give me some proof or admit everything you've said is either BS or an opinion


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> I do have evidence, just go look at the best method debate thread.


How about you respond to all the points I made against your argument?


----------



## Etotheipi (May 20, 2020)

@cringeycuber101 all your arguments were the standard CFOP fan-boy arguments that have been shot down hundreds of times. That being said, I have the standard Roux-fanboy argument that Sean is an alien superhero.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> Roux-fanboy argument that Sean is an alien superhero.


Stop telling us what we all already know


Etotheipi said:


> @cringeycuber101 all your arguments were the standard CFOP fan-boy arguments that have been shot down hundreds of times.


Yeah, just go back a month or two, to the last CFOP supremacy breakout and you'll see the exact same things.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> CFOP supremacy


CFOP is the best. Period. End of story.


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> CFOP is the best. Period. End of story.



Objective proof please.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> CFOP is the best. Period. End of story.


And DON'T use arguments that have already been shot down.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Stop telling us what we all already know
> 
> Yeah, just go back a month or two, to the last CFOP supremacy breakout and you'll see the exact same things.


yeah, I think a couple months ago I used that logic to a certain extent to promote CFOP, but I've changed to better logic that CFOP and Roux are likely equal, but neither of them is *bad* for 3x3 2H or for OH. CFOP is better for big cubes, and Roux is (most likely) better for OH, but CFOP is still viable for OH and Roux has not proved to be viable for big cubes.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> yeah, I think a couple months ago I used that logic to a certain extent to promote CFOP, but I've changed to better logic that CFOP and Roux are likely equal, but neither of them is *bad* for 3x3 2H or for OH. CFOP is better for big cubes, and Roux is (most likely) better for OH, but CFOP is still viable for OH and Roux has not proved to be viable for big cubes.


_Your journey to the dark side begins..._


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 20, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Objective proof please.





brododragon said:


> And DON'T use arguments that have already been shot down.


I use cfop, I’m too lazy to get as good with other methods, and I want to feel good about myself. I dislike (Insert Brody Here) lying to myself, but sometimes, I’ve just gotta do it.


----------



## mukerflap (May 20, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> yeah, I think a couple months ago I used that logic to a certain extent to promote CFOP, but I've changed to better logic that CFOP and Roux are likely equal, but neither of them is *bad* for 3x3 2H or for OH. CFOP is better for big cubes, and Roux is (most likely) better for OH, but CFOP is still viable for OH and Roux has not proved to be viable for big cubes.


how is roux not viable for big cubes M slices are easy


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> how is roux not viable for big cubes M slices are easy


doing reduction and solving the 3x3 stage with roux is probably just around 5 seconds slower than doing that with CFOP, since it seems like building the blocks is harder without inspection than building a cross. Also, M slices are doable on 6x6 and 7x7 now that they're magnetic, but it's still not ideal. Also, I think Meyer is certainly not viable, or at least hasn't proven to be even close to viable.


----------



## mukerflap (May 20, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> doing reduction and solving the 3x3 stage with roux is probably just around 5 seconds slower than doing that with CFOP, since it seems like building the blocks is harder without inspection than building a cross. Also, M slices are doable on 6x6 and 7x7 now that they're magnetic, but it's still not ideal. Also, I think Meyer is certainly not viable, or at least hasn't proven to be even close to viable.


you seriously think +5 seconds because you cant plan the first block?


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> you seriously think +5 seconds because you cant plan the first block?


and just worse fingertricks for big cubes. Like, for CFOP, you can pretty much do one or two extra rotations and do RUF but in Roux you're doing a bunch of different movesets which can be harder for big cubes.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> I use cfop, I’m too lazy to get as good with other methods, and I want to feel good about myself. I dislike (Insert Brody Here) lying to myself, but sometimes, I’ve just gotta do it.


Do you know what objective means? Also, wdym by (Insert Brody Here)?


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

this video:


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

?


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> ?


did you watch the video?


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 20, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> how is roux not viable for big cubes M slices are easy


1. Meyer is awful compared to redux and yau
2. No they are not, I have gotten many DNFS because of the MU U perms on 5x5.
3. CFOP and Petrus are much better for big cubes because they have close to no wide moves and are mostly RUF (ZZ is RUL) and thats much better then RrUM. Out of CFOP Petrus Roux and ZZ Roux is by far the worst for big cubes. Petrus and CFOP are viable for big cubes and ZZ to an extent but not roux.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> did you watch the video?


A while ago.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> this video:


Ohhh I see.


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> how is roux not viable for big cubes M slices are easy



On 4x4, yeah. On 5x5, doable. 6x6+? You might as well go JPerm and reduce it to a 2x2, it'd be faster than M moves


----------



## mukerflap (May 20, 2020)

ProStar said:


> On 4x4, yeah. On 5x5, doable. 6x6+? You might as well go JPerm and reduce it to a 2x2, it'd be faster than M moves






 skip to end


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

Oh Boy... I'm not ready to read 5 more pages of text yet.


----------



## mukerflap (May 20, 2020)

also note that on this solve, kevin took 16 seconds on 3x3 stage, henry only took 15 with roux


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Do you know what objective means?


Yeah, it means use no evidence and make an argument as opinion based as possible /s


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

so the fastest Roux 7x7 solve you could find was a 3:33? Also Kevin's solve was back before magnetic 7x7's were a thing and even if his was magnetic it was a flippin' HUANGLONG.


----------



## mukerflap (May 20, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> so the fastest Roux 7x7 solve you could find was a 3:33? Also Kevin's solve was back before magnetic 7x7's were a thing and even if his was magnetic it was a flippin' HUANGLONG.


its because there arent many roux solvers that do 7x7. its just proof that m slices work on big cubes





 here is the fastest roux solve on 7x7 (meyer)


----------



## Cuberstache (May 20, 2020)

...It's done by someone who doesn't even use Meyer or Roux as their main method; surely that must say something about their viability.


----------



## Nmile7300 (May 20, 2020)

Just saying, this thread is about OH methods. Can we get it back to that instead of big cubes?


----------



## mukerflap (May 20, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> Just saying, this thread is about OH methods. Can we get it back to that instead of big cubes?


it doesnt really matter


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> also note that on this solve, kevin took 16 seconds on 3x3 stage, henry only took 15 with roux


But that was also a long time ago


----------



## Nmile7300 (May 20, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> it doesnt really matter


Actually it does. The title of this thread is "OH method debate". We need to keep it on the topic, discussing whether Roux is good for big cubes is completely irrelevant.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> Yeah, it means use no evidence and make an argument as opinion based as possible


I hope that's sattire, because that's completely and entirely wrong.

What I really hate is in when debates, as soon as I'm winning, some people will just try to change the subject or just use irony to make arguing useless.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I hope that's sattire *Satire*, because that's completely and entirely wrong.
> 
> What I really hate is in when debates, as soon as I'm winning, some people will just try to change the subject or just use irony to make arguing useless.


Haha isn't that ironic? So how's the weather in virginia?


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 20, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> its because there arent many roux solvers that do 7x7. its just proof that m slices work on big cubes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you are telling me that Tymon kolasinski, One of the fastest CFOP users in the world, has the Meyer 7x7 WR? I also would like to mention that this Meyer solves on 7x7 is ALMOST 1 MINUTE SLOWER then his real PB (2:05 vs 2:51). _*This is by far the strongest evidence that Meyer is an awful big cube method.*_


----------



## mukerflap (May 21, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> So you are telling me that Tymon kolasinski, One of the fastest CFOP users in the world, has the Meyer 7x7 WR? I also would like to mention that this Meyer solves on 7x7 is ALMOST 1 MINUTE SLOWER then his real PB (2:05 vs 2:51). _*This is by far the strongest evidence that Meyer is an awful big cube method.*_


when did i say meyer was a good method? i literally didnt mention it anywhere, you could just do reduction into roux.


----------



## ProStar (May 21, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> when did i say meyer was a good method? i literally didnt mention it anywhere, you could just do reduction into roux.



That's even worse for 4x4, and either way M-slices SUCK for big cubes. There's no opinion on this subject, doing M slices on large cubes fast is impossible


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 21, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> when did i say meyer was a good method? i literally didnt mention it anywhere, you could just do reduction into roux.


tbh I think anyone who averages x seconds with roux could quickly become within 2-3 seconds of that average if they committed to CFOP for a week-3 weeks and then, boom, their 3x3 stage is already better.


----------



## mukerflap (May 21, 2020)

ProStar said:


> That's even worse for 4x4, and either way M-slices SUCK for big cubes. There's no opinion on this subject, doing M slices on large cubes fast is impossible


did you not watch the clip i showed you? m slices are not hard on 7x7


----------



## Nmile7300 (May 21, 2020)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can we get back on topic!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 21, 2020)

ProStar said:


> That's even worse for 4x4, and either way M-slices SUCK for big cubes. There's no opinion on this subject, doing M slices on large cubes fast is impossible


I think it's possible but very risky and often isn't fast.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 21, 2020)

I think you guys can take this big cube stuff to the method debate thread


----------



## ProStar (May 21, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> tbh I think anyone who averages x seconds with roux could quickly become within 2-3 seconds of that average if they committed to CFOP for a week-3 weeks and then, boom, their 3x3 stage is already better.



I think that anyone using Roux/ZZ or something similar should just use CFOP for big cubes, it makes it so much easier. Kian is around 12 seconds with CFOP(3x3) with basically no practice, and Phil uses Yau(which uses CFOP on 3x3 stage) for 4x4



mukerflap said:


> did you not watch the clip i showed you? m slices are not hard on 7x7



Do an MU H-Perm or any MU alg on a 7x7 and tell me what time you got


----------



## mukerflap (May 21, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can we get back on topic!!!!!!!!!!


its really not that bad you just dont have to look at this thread


----------



## mukerflap (May 21, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I think that anyone using Roux/ZZ or something similar should just use CFOP for big cubes, it makes it so much easier. Kian is around 12 seconds with CFOP(3x3) with basically no practice, and Phil uses Yau(which uses CFOP on 3x3 stage) for 4x4
> 
> 
> 
> Do an MU H-Perm or any MU alg on a 7x7 and tell me what time you got






he is very clearly having no trouble doing lse on 7x7. i dont have a 7x7 so i cant talk about it


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 21, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> i dont have a 7x7 so i cant talk about it


Then why are you trying to convince us that M moves are easy on 7x7 if you have not even tried it?


----------



## mukerflap (May 21, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Then why are you trying to convince us that M moves are easy on 7x7 if you have not even tried it?


because i can see other people turning fast on it, and i can do LSE sub 3 on my outdated unlubed 5x5 non magnetic


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 21, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> because i can see other people turning fast on it, and i can do LSE sub 3 on my outdated unlubed 5x5 non magnetic


"I see all of the world records for OH on CFOP and since other people are doing it then it must be the best"
According to your logic, CFOP is indeed the best OH method


----------



## mukerflap (May 21, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> "I see all of the world records for OH on CFOP and since other people are doing it then it must be the best"
> According to your logic, CFOP is indeed the best OH method


no, saying whether a method is good or not is so much different than being able to do M moves on 7x7. You have literally been objectively proven wrong here and you cannot accept it. M move are very possible on 7x7 and i have given video proof. When i can actually go to a comp and try a good 7x7 i could record a sub 3 LSE ao12


----------



## Nmile7300 (May 21, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> its really not that bad you just dont have to look at this thread


Actually it is. The last 2 and a half pages are basically all about Roux for big cubes, when the topic is supposed to be about OH. And yes I know, I don't have to look at the thread, but trust me, I'm not doing this for myself. I want people to be able to have an on topic debate about OH methods without sifting through pages of off topic stuff.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 21, 2020)

What would be a good experiment to decide whether M moves are good on big cubes or not? It seems like I can do MU U Perms and RU U perms about the same speed but MU has fewer moves. But MU U perms are more risky so it's probably better to just do RU.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 21, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> no, saying whether a method is good or not is so much different than being able to do M moves on 7x7.


But according to you if someone else does it then everyone else can just as well? Is that not what you meant in this post?


mukerflap said:


> because i can see other people turning fast on it





mukerflap said:


> You have literally been objectively proven wrong here and you cannot accept it.


I have something for you my friend

Seriously, how have I been proven wrong on what topic?


----------



## Cuberstache (May 21, 2020)

Guys, do you even see @Nmile7300 's posts asking you to stay on-topic?


----------



## mukerflap (May 21, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> But according to you if someone else does it then everyone else can just as well? Is that not what you meant in this post?
> 
> 
> I have something for you my friend
> ...


no its a proof of concept that M moves are possible on 7x7 and you can turn decently fast with them. Everyone can do it if they have a good 7x7


----------



## Etotheipi (May 21, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> no its a proof of concept that M moves are possible on 7x7 and you can turn decently fast with them. Everyone can do it if they have a good 7x7


You've made your point that you can do M moves on big cubes, there's no need to restate it a thousand times. Now back to OH for goodness' sake.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 21, 2020)

I'm going to be honest on my X Man Spark M M moves aren't that much of a problem for me. It's worse on my Shadow M, because the magnets aren't as strong (use code "MICAH" at speedcubing.org so I can get an MGC 6x6  )



Nmile7300 said:


> Actually it is. The last 2 and a half pages are basically all about Roux for big cubes, when the topic is supposed to be about OH. And yes I know, I don't have to look at the thread, but trust me, I'm not doing this for myself. I want people to be able to have an on topic debate about OH methods without sifting through pages of off topic stuff.



sometimes, after debating for 14 pages about which method is best for OH, people run out of things to talk about that specific topic.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 21, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> sometimes, after debating for 14 pages about which method is best for OH, people run out of things to talk about that specific topic.


_Especially when someone keeps on stating opinions as fact ignoring that we already came to the conclusion that there is no 1 best method for OH and it depends on the person and their skillset._


----------



## Nmile7300 (May 21, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> sometimes, after debating for 14 pages about which method is best for OH, people run out of things to talk about that specific topic.


That's true.


----------



## mukerflap (May 21, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> _Especially when someone keeps on stating opinions as fact ignoring that we already came to the conclusion that there is no 1 best method for OH and it depends on the person and their skillset._


LBL is not worse than cfop all methods are equal


----------



## Etotheipi (May 21, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> LBL is not worse than cfop all methods are equal


Wow! I never knew that! Tell me more.


----------



## ProStar (May 21, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> LBL is not worse than cfop all methods are equal



See, here's where this is different. I have objective proof that LBL is worse


CFOP is very similar in many ways to LBL, except it combines steps 2 & 3 into one step without compromising lookahead. For the last layer, it is finished in two algorithms instead of 4. CFOP is LBL except it's more efficient without compromising ergonomics or lookahead

You can't do that with Roux vs. CFOP


----------



## brododragon (May 21, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> Haha isn't that ironic? So how's the weather in virginia?


*TRASH*

alright that's an overstatement but it never snows and when it does it's in late spring so it melts in two seconds. But hey, we still get school off. You get used to all the bug bites are terrible humidity. One time, I slept outside on a cot and I kid you not I had *Over a 100 bugbites.*

Alright, back on topic


mukerflap said:


> LBL is not worse than cfop all methods are equal


That's why ZZ is just as good as ZZ-a and you can get just as fast times with 8355 method.


----------



## ProStar (May 21, 2020)

We better stay on topic, @Nmile7300 will hyperventilate otherwise


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 21, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> tbh I think anyone who averages x seconds with roux could quickly become within 2-3 seconds of that average if they committed to CFOP for a week-3 weeks and then, boom, their 3x3 stage is already better.


But you can't go from CFOP to Roux very easily.


----------



## TheRouxGuy (May 21, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> But you can't go from CFOP to Roux very easily.


It only the blockbuilding that one has to get used to. Rest is easily adaptable though I'm not sure about LSE. Believe me, I've switched back and forth thrice and it never was an issue.


----------



## BlindNerd (May 22, 2020)

zhouheng


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 22, 2020)

BlindNerd said:


> zhouheng


I've never seen a premium member with only 8 messages, is that a WR or something?


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 23, 2020)

Is there any method that someone has gotten an *OH 8.3 Ao5 *on cam with?

Yep, that’s right, it’s the fatty sauce method! Excuse me- Roux. So we can conclude from this 8.3 Ao5 done OH that either Kian Mansour is a god solver, or Roux is a god OH method, or both.

This is the fastest OH Ao5 in the world by a landslide, right? Correct me if I’m wrong, I’d love to know about something even more incredible.
(Even if this isn’t, Kian was/is an amazing OH solver and Roux is an amazing OH method.)


----------



## mukerflap (May 23, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> Is there any method that someone has gotten an *OH 8.3 Ao5 *on cam with?
> 
> Yep, that’s right, it’s the fatty sauce method! Excuse me- Roux. So we can conclude from this 8.3 Ao5 done OH that either Kian Mansour is a god solver, or Roux is a god OH method, or both.
> 
> ...


Iuri has an 8.8 ao5 on cam .. also with roux


----------



## TheRouxGuy (May 29, 2020)

How many of you realised that this thread has become peaceful since brand cults have been formed


----------



## maticuber (May 29, 2020)

The fastest OH method is using a table, who knew.


----------



## ProStar (Jul 4, 2020)

Can we appreciate for a second the lack of knowledge of the English and cubing language that is showcased in the poll?

"loer"
"YruRu"
"Best OH Method"


----------



## Username: Username: (Jul 4, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Can we appreciate for a second the lack of knowledge of the English language that is showcased in the poll?
> 
> "loer"
> "YruRu"
> "Best OH Method"


Yes, the English language is quite strange that the commun peorson can't understonks it.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jul 4, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Can we appreciate for a second the lack of knowledge of the English and cubing language that is showcased in the poll?
> 
> "loer"
> "YruRu"
> "Best OH Method"


why you gotta do me like that? I mean at least I'm not completely opposed to ZZ

frickin frick bro what the frick


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Sep 27, 2020)

just putting this here


----------



## Cubing Forever (Nov 1, 2020)

Kaneki Uchiha said:


> just putting this here


Those M slices!!! How can he do them that fast? Considering M slices are harder than S slices for OH


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Nov 1, 2020)

Cubing Forever said:


> Those M slices!!! How can he do them that fast? Considering M slices are harder than S slices for OH


both S and M slices can be done very fast
M slices are better than S for sure though @Cubing Forever


----------



## Cubing Forever (Nov 1, 2020)

Kaneki Uchiha said:


> both S and M slices can be done very fast


S slices can be done without tabling but M slices do require it and even if you put the cube so hard on the table so as to make a hole on it, it still moves the R layer so M always becomes r R' when I try it.


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Nov 1, 2020)

Cubing Forever said:


> S slices can be done without tabling but M slices do require it and even if you put the cube so hard on the table so as to make a hole on it, it still moves the R layer so M always becomes r R' when I try it.


thats because you arent good at it. that doesnt mean it cant be done


----------



## Cubing Forever (Nov 1, 2020)

Kaneki Uchiha said:


> thats because you arent good at it. that doesnt mean it cant be done


Yeah maybe that's the problem


----------



## abunickabhi (Nov 1, 2020)

Roux is clearly much better. It is near to crossing 50% on this thread's poll. 

I switched to Roux OH in 2016 yo.


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 2, 2020)

bump.

This thread is dead. no one is continuing this?


----------



## Silky (Dec 3, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> bump.
> 
> This thread is dead. no one is continuing this?


Any thoughts on ZBRoux and LEOR ? Both are a mix of ZZ and Roux which are definitely the best OH methods currently. They both are rotationless, have reduced move sets ( reduce to 2/3 gen in several steps ), are efficient, and have access to LL options, specifically ZBLL.


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 3, 2020)

Silky said:


> Any thoughts on ZBRoux and LEOR ? Both are a mix of ZZ and Roux which are definitely the best OH methods currently. They both are rotationless, have reduced move sets ( reduce to 2/3 gen in several steps ), are efficient, and have access to LL options, specifically ZBLL.


@Tao Yu (sorry for mentioning you, but what do you think about ZBRoux, or Leor?) I think he said that ZBRoux wouldnt be really a good mix, im not sure i forgot where he said that, or maybe he didnt say it all, but i think that on last layer it would be a bit awkward, idk really, Tao yu help me out on this one.


----------

