# Poll: What speedcubing method do you use?



## CornerCutter (Oct 25, 2016)

It has been a few years since the last time there was a poll take for your main speedcubing method so I'd thought I would make one. It will be interesting to see how methods have changed from Last Time. I use CFOP. Please share.


----------



## sqAree (Oct 25, 2016)

I don't see why ZZ an ZB are paired like that.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Oct 25, 2016)

I am ZB/roux neutral


----------



## GuRoux (Oct 25, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> I am ZB/roux neutral


but your cfop is 16 and your roux is 21, so wouldn't your main method be cfop?


----------



## Ranzha (Oct 25, 2016)

PetFOP.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Oct 26, 2016)

GuRoux said:


> but your cfop is 16 and your roux is 21, so wouldn't your main method be cfop?


I use Roux whenever there are premade pairs or squares. Yeah, my Roux is a bit slower, that's why I need to practice


----------



## AlphaSheep (Oct 26, 2016)

ZB is just a CFOP variant that just groups the steps differently. Normally you do C, F, O, P but with ZB you do C, (F+½O), (½O+P). ZZ is quite different.


----------



## FJT97 (Oct 26, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> ZB is just a CFOP variant that just groups the steps differently. Normally you do C, F, O, P but with ZB you do C, (F+½O), (½O+P). ZZ is quite different.


Agreed.
Separate those please. It hurts my zz heart


----------



## CornerCutter (Oct 26, 2016)

FJT97 said:


> Agreed.
> Separate those please. It hurts my zz heart



I would but it won't allow me to.....sorry.


----------



## TheSilverBeluga (Oct 26, 2016)

It would be interesting to know who's color neutral as well.


----------



## CornerCutter (Oct 26, 2016)

TheSilverBeluga said:


> It would be interesting to know who's color neutral as well.



Good Idea! I'll do that in a few days.


----------



## Matt11111 (Oct 26, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> I use Roux whenever there are premade pairs or squares. Yeah, my Roux is a bit slower, that's why I need to practice


Pairs and squares. anyway, I use CFOP, but I learned Petrus, Roux, and ZZ for my math fair project.


----------



## Joel2274 (Oct 26, 2016)

actually kinda surprised, I though roux would be more popular than ZZ. I know nothing about the two


----------



## TheSilverBeluga (Oct 26, 2016)

CornerCutter said:


> Good Idea! I'll do that in a few days.


It's not just whether or not someone's color neutral, that poll has been done before. I'm more interested in what percentage of CFOP solvers are color neutral, as opposed to, say the percentage of Roux solvers are color neutral.


----------



## GuRoux (Oct 26, 2016)

Joel2274 said:


> actually kinda surprised, I though roux would be more popular than ZZ. I know nothing about the two


surprised about that too. i thought roux popularity has grown significantly, but i guess it's really zz who is the real winner.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 26, 2016)

Joel2274 said:


> actually kinda surprised, I though roux would be more popular than ZZ. I know nothing about the two


Current scores for ZZ (5) and Roux (4) are too small to draw any conclusion yet. (Except that CFOP is way more popular than either of them.)


----------



## efattah (Oct 27, 2016)

I know we've been through this before, but I still think that when you sign your name next to your 3x3 time, there should be a box where you can put the abbreviation of the method used in the solve. It would be so awesome to be able to search the WCA database and find the fastest singles/averages with different variants. Since some people use different methods from one solve/round to the next, putting it next to your time would be ideal. Also in that case polls such as this would not be needed, you would just query the database.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Oct 27, 2016)

GuRoux said:


> surprised about that too. i thought roux popularity has grown significantly, but i guess it's really zz who is the real winner.


Its now 14 to Roux, 5 to ZZ, which is probably the right sort of ratio.

It's also worth noting that these polls are biased to people who read the forum regularly, and these people are far far more likely to try new methods than people who don't read the forums. So these polls are heavily biased and exaggerate less common methods.

This poll suggests 1 in 4 cubers uses Roux as their main method but realistically it's probably less than 1 in 20. For ZZ it's most likely less than 1 in 50.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 27, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> Its now 14 to Roux, 5 to ZZ, which is probably the right sort of ratio.


The Roux score went up by 11 overnight while CFOP/ZZ went up by 4 between them, suggesting that some Roux fan told his friends to vote .


----------



## muchacho (Oct 27, 2016)

Nice try at guessing, but Roux fans have no friends 



Spoiler



It was Kian (PDF) on FB... hope he doesn't ban me


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 27, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> The Roux score went up by 11 overnight while CFOP/ZZ went up by 4 between them, suggesting that some Roux fan told his friends to vote .





muchacho said:


> Nice try at guessing, but Roux fans have no friends
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't just sit back and watch the best method be the least popular.


----------



## GuRoux (Oct 27, 2016)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> I can't just sit back and watch the best method be the least popular.


you totally undermined the poll.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Oct 27, 2016)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> I can't just sit back and watch the best method be the least popular.


what does this mean?


----------



## DGCubes (Oct 27, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> what does this mean?



He is incapable of having his weight supported by his buttocks while observing attentively that the most excellent, effective, or desirable procedure for accomplishing something is liked, admired, or enjoyed to the smallest extent or degree.

Thanks, Google.


----------



## Matt11111 (Oct 27, 2016)

DGCubes said:


> He is incapable of having his weight supported by his buttocks while observing attentively that the most excellent, effective, or desirable procedure for accomplishing something is liked, admired, or enjoyed to the smallest extent or degree.
> 
> Thanks, Google.


Thesauruses for the win... Thesauri...? Both.

Thanks, Google.


----------



## Sion (Oct 28, 2016)

PCMS boiiiii


----------



## efattah (Oct 28, 2016)

I really get the feel that the actual percentage of speed cubers that use CFOP is around 99%. Honestly find me any recent competition that had even ONE Roux solver. At US nationals the final 16 had zero. This is nothing against the method it is obviously super fast (though possibly slower to master). At the time of writing this there are 442 people who have recorded official sub-10 averages on 3x3. How many of those are with Roux? I'd guess something between 10 and 30.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 29, 2016)

efattah said:


> I really get the feel that the actual percentage of speed cubers that use CFOP is around 99%. Honestly find me any recent competition that had even ONE Roux solver. At US nationals the final 16 had zero. This is nothing against the method it is obviously super fast (though possibly slower to master). At the time of writing this there are 442 people who have recorded official sub-10 averages on 3x3. How many of those are with Roux? I'd guess something between 10 and 30.


At this time the list is 
Alexander Lau (7.37)
Kaijun Lin (8.40)
Kavin Tangtartharakul (8.79)
Kian Mansour (8.98)
Ryan Przybocki (9.06)
Vincent Wong (9.17)
Austin Moore (9.48)
Tomoya Yamashita (9.67)
Thom Barlow (9.97)
Though I would disagree with your assessment that is takes longer to get faster with roux as insofar as I'm aware rouxers tend to progress faster though the sheer number of CFOPers means that they have a distinct advantage for number of sub-x.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 29, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> At this time the list is
> Alexander Lau (7.37)
> Kaijun Lin (8.40)
> Kavin Tangtartharakul (8.79)
> ...


Roux advancement is fast because of the intuitive nature of the method. 3/4 steps are intuitive, and intuitive steps are easier to improve on than algorithmic steps when youre starting out. The "number of sub-x" argument is the hardest one, but the numbers get very very close when you look at the elites.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Oct 29, 2016)

Beginners choose CFOP because it's undeniably the method the vast majority of fast people use. The fast people stick with CFOP because they've invested a lot of effort into it and don't want that effort to go to waste. It's a self-sustaining cycle, and it's going to take something major to break it - a Roux user at #2 in the world apparently wasn't even enough.


----------



## sqAree (Oct 29, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> Beginners choose CFOP because it's undeniably the method the vast majority of fast people use. The fast people stick with CFOP because they've invested a lot of effort into it and don't want that effort to go to waste. It's a self-sustaining cycle, and it's going to take something major to break it - a Roux user at #2 in the world apparently wasn't even enough.



Maybe there are just more people that just like CFOP more (for example I).


----------



## GenTheThief (Oct 29, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> a Roux user at #2 in the world apparently wasn't even enough.


nor a OH ZZ user at #2 either.
I think its also that there are hardly any resources, at least compared to CFOP, about ZZ or Roux. When you search up solving faster, CFOP dominates.


----------



## CornerCutter (Oct 29, 2016)

efattah said:


> I really get the feel that the actual percentage of speed cubers that use CFOP is around 99%. Honestly find me any recent competition that had even ONE Roux solver. At US nationals the final 16 had zero. This is nothing against the method it is obviously super fast (though possibly slower to master). At the time of writing this there are 442 people who have recorded official sub-10 averages on 3x3. How many of those are with Roux? I'd guess something between 10 and 30.



I would tend to agree with you.



sqAree said:


> Maybe there are just more people that just like CFOP more (for example I).



I think so too.


----------



## GuRoux (Oct 29, 2016)

people got to stop with the resources stuff. pretty much all you need for roux is CMLL, and that's easy to find. and there has been threads from way back when that discuss most of the advance techniques. now there are even videos for those techniques and hundreds of example solves from elite roux users. i don't think people choose not to do roux or zz because of lack of resources. i certainly didn't even consider it. more like people don't choose roux because of popularity or too much invested time in cfop.


----------



## GenTheThief (Oct 29, 2016)

efattah said:


> Honestly find me any recent competition that had even ONE Roux solver.


Dixon Fall 2016 had TWO Roux solvers. @Knut Peterson and Kevin Gee.
There may have been more, I only judged Knut and recognized his LSE, and Kevin is my brother. 



GuRoux said:


> people got to stop with the resources stuff. pretty much all you need for roux is CMLL, and that's easy to find. and there has been threads from way back when that discuss most of the advance techniques. now there are even videos for those techniques and hundreds of example solves from elite roux users. i don't think people choose not to do roux or zz because of lack of resources. i certainly didn't even consider it. more like people don't choose roux because of popularity or too much invested time in cfop.



I'm not saying that there aren't enough Roux resources, I was just saying, that when you are starting out and have no idea where too look, there is a greater chance of finding CFOP resources than ZZ or Roux resources.
Sure, if you know what to look for it isn't hard to find, but if not, then you just go with what comes first which will most likely be CFOP stuff.
And then, after spending some time getting faster at CFOP, people wont want to switch methods.


----------



## Umm Roux? (Oct 29, 2016)

GuRoux said:


> people got to stop with the resources stuff. pretty much all you need for roux is CMLL, and that's easy to find. and there has been threads from way back when that discuss most of the advance techniques. now there are even videos for those techniques and hundreds of example solves from elite roux users. i don't think people choose not to do roux or zz because of lack of resources. i certainly didn't even consider it. more like people don't choose roux because of popularity or too much invested time in cfop.


It is pretty hard to find Roux until it's too late. When I started cubing, I thought just wanted to be able to solve a cube, until I got caught between an argument between a CFOPer and a Rouxer. I chose Roux only because my friend said it looked sexy. Unless by influence of a fellow rouxer(a rarity), a newcomer is most likely going to go LBL-->CFOP.


----------



## SAI Peregrinus (Nov 2, 2016)

I started cubing back in 2001 when I was in high-school. Got sub-30 with CFOP, but lost interest/moved on. I've been playing around with abstract algebra and decided to get a new cube about 2 weeks ago. I've forgotten almost everything from before, so I decided to learn Roux for speed and Heise for understanding/challenge. I'm at about a minute right now with Roux, with 2-look CMLL and cycling to orient L6E. 

So I found CFOP and Petrus first, but there wasn't much info on Petrus (Fridrich's page on CFOP was one of the few sites with comprehensive info at the time) and ZZ/Roux/Heise/etc hadn't been invented yet. Coming back I see that significant progress has been made in speed solving. I chose Roux this time around because of the low move counts / high intuitive aspects mostly, it seems likely to be a rather optimal method. The low algorithm count makes it easier to learn as a (mostly) beginner: I have enough experience to solve without algorithms and don't really want to spend tons of time on memorization. While move counts aren't directly proportional to speed they are related, so that's another point in its favor. And I've always rather liked slice moves, so Roux it is!


----------



## SSforlife (Apr 13, 2017)

What method do you find more efficient and fast for a 3x3?


----------



## FJT97 (Apr 13, 2017)

I use zz. And I think waterroux has great potential.
If you want to find a method that fits for you, look in many different ones, not just cfop or roux.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Apr 13, 2017)

Years ago I read the beginners guide to choosing a speed solving method. I tried them all and chose ZZ as my main method. I have no regrets.


----------



## SSforlife (Apr 13, 2017)

Thanks for the advice, 
think i will experiment with different methods because I have just started cubing about a week ago, and with learning beginner CFOP (F2L, and 2 look OLL and Pll) I have been wanting to improve my times without having to learn 60+ algorithms. I will try ZZ and see how it goes, and I will give a bit more than a week to test it out (unlike with CFOP).


----------



## cuber314159 (Apr 13, 2017)

You are doing very well with cfop though, F2L and 4lll in a week is very fast if you kept it up you could be fast quickly, most people I find use something like youcandothecube.com and don't learn much more for a long time.
But if you learn full pll now and don't switch then you could be fast quickly, you must be good at learning algs as 4lll is 15


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Apr 13, 2017)

ZZ is cool, roux's ok, CFOP's ok


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Apr 13, 2017)

FastCubeMaster said:


> ZZ is cool, roux's ok, CFOP's ok


ZZ is Awesome, Roux is cool, CFOP is generic and sux.


----------



## Elo13 (Apr 13, 2017)

ZZ is cool, Roux is awesome, CFOP is fun


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 13, 2017)

Tell me again which method is consistently fast and overpowered? Oh right. Not one of those hippie methods like sleepy cat (ZZ-CT) but the mainstream one, which is mainstream for a reason. #MakeAmericaCFOPAgain


----------



## LexCubing (Apr 17, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> ZB is just a CFOP variant that just groups the steps differently. Normally you do C, F, O, P but with ZB you do C, (F+½O), (½O+P). ZZ is quite different.


ZB is not a method by itself just like CT. You don't need to do CFOP, as long you can make F2L-1 you can use ZB. CT can be used if EO is solved which means Petrus can use this too.


----------



## LexCubing (Apr 17, 2017)

Try flooding Youtube with a BUNCH of Roux/ZZ/Petrus/etc. AND make it GOOD and easy to understand. CFOP has oversaturated the place. Sure there are resources but they get flooded by CFOP. I hope someone makes a good tutorial and how to advanced w/ ZZ. You can count how many walkthroughs are out there about ZZ. I hope someone can make a better or shorter tutorial for ZZ since it might sway others who are ****ton lazy. Also Problem Solved's videos SUCKED! Read this pal and take a good look at your ZZ "Progression Videos". I don't want to talk in detail since I'm tired typing all of this.

TL;DR Make more tutorials about other methods and Problem Solved's vid about ZZ is BS


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 17, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Tell me again which method is consistently fast and overpowered? Oh right. Not one of those hippie methods like sleepy cat (ZZ-CT) but the mainstream one, which is mainstream for a reason. #MakeAmericaCFOPAgain


CFOP is actually not a good method. Best method is honestly probably ZZ-a. I use CFOP btw, almost sub-9. I still regret not learning something like Roux or ZZ.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 17, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> CFOP is actually not a good method. Best method is honestly probably ZZ-a. I use CFOP btw, almost sub-9. I still regret not learning something like Roux or ZZ.


says random person (random because doesn't have an official sub-8.71 single or an official sub-10.47 average, as that is the accepted definition of relevancy amirite?)

e: but yeah I agree that CFOP definitely isn't better than some other methods, but I don't think it's worse either.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 17, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> says random person (random because doesn't have an official sub-8.71 single or an official sub-10.47 average, as that is the accepted definition of relevancy amirite?)
> 
> e: but yeah I agree that CFOP definitely isn't better than some other methods, but I don't think it's worse either.


I unfortunately don't have the luxury of attending many comps. I don't do well in them cuz I'm not really that used to the pressure. I do have a 7.67 ao5 on cam though... Am I relevant yet? My point is comps aren't everything. And sure, I could claim I'm sub-2 on 3x3 and give no evidence because I've "never been to a comp", but I like to think most cubers (such as myself) have a little more integrity than that. anyway, since you're agreeing with me, why did you feel the need to boast your official PBs, exactly? I'm pretty sure that wasn't necessary. I'm going to further my point by giving some facts, since speed doesn't make anyone relevant.

CFOP averages like 60 moves. Feliks himself says he averages around 62 moves per solve. Roux is around 48 moves, and I believe Alex Lau usually got around 44 move solutions. However, Roux does have pretty crappy lookahead. The reason why I'm inclined to say ZZ-a is the best mainstream method is because it has a very low move count, around 44-ish, which beats both Roux and CFOP, and because ZZ has very good lookahead. The only reason CFOP dominates right now is because that's what all the top speedcubers have been practicing with for years. If someone took the time to learn and practice full ZBLL, and mastered ZZ in the same way CFOPers have "mastered" CFOP, that person would undoubtedly be faster.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 18, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> I unfortunately don't have the luxury of attending many comps. I don't do well in them cuz I'm not really that used to the pressure. I do have a 7.67 ao5 on cam though... Am I relevant yet? My point is comps aren't everything. And sure, I could claim I'm sub-2 on 3x3 and give no evidence because I've "never been to a comp", but I like to think most cubers (such as myself) have a little more integrity than that. anyway, since you're agreeing with me, why did you feel the need to boast your official PBs, exactly? I'm pretty sure that wasn't necessary. I'm going to further my point by giving some facts, since speed doesn't make anyone relevant.


Half of what I post on this site is trolling, it's my nature unfortunately



crafto22 said:


> CFOP averages like 60 moves. Feliks himself says he averages around 62 moves per solve. Roux is around 48 moves, and I believe Alex Lau usually got around 44 move solutions. However, Roux does have pretty crappy lookahead. The reason why I'm inclined to say ZZ-a is the best mainstream method is because it has a very low move count, around 44-ish, which beats both Roux and CFOP, and because ZZ has very good lookahead. The only reason CFOP dominates right now is because that's what all the top speedcubers have been practicing with for years. If someone took the time to learn and practice full ZBLL, and mastered ZZ in the same way CFOPers have "mastered" CFOP, that person would undoubtedly be faster.


It honestly depends on what you consider the downsides of a method. Theoretically, the best method would be memorizing every possible configuration and learning an algorithm to solve it, but that's 4.3e19 algorithms (minus mirrors and rotations and stuff), which is clearly a downside; in a less unrealistic example, some people would consider learning 400 (?? I forgot how many) algorithms for ZBLL a downside, but once you learn that, of course that gives you a potential advantage over someone with the same experience who only knows 78 algorithms plus a few tricks.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 18, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Half of what I post on this site is trolling, it's my nature unfortunately
> 
> 
> It honestly depends on what you consider the downsides of a method. Theoretically, the best method would be memorizing every possible configuration and learning an algorithm to solve it, but that's 4.3e19 algorithms (minus mirrors and rotations and stuff), which is clearly a downside; in a less unrealistic example, some people would consider learning 400 (?? I forgot how many) algorithms for ZBLL a downside, but once you learn that, of course that gives you a potential advantage over someone with the same experience who only knows 78 algorithms plus a few tricks.


Exactly. ZZ-a is technically the best method, but I wouldn't call it the most approachable. However, I still strongly believe CFOP is a bad method in comparison to newer methods being developed. I myself am a method developer, and from what I've seen so far the "ultimate" method is probably LMCF. WaterRoux, a method I co-created, has lots of potential too, but as it is currently in development I can't say much about it. I recommend everyone goes and checks out LMCF though, there's a really nice document available that outlines the steps and algs and yadda yadda.


----------

