# I feel bad for Kian?



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 22, 2019)

Not an AsR or even an NR, but Sean Patrick Villanueva just this morning got a 6.42 3x3 average in round one of Luzon Championship. This makes him officially better than Kian Mansour, who is widely considered to be the fastest roux solver, but only has a 6.52 average currently. 

GJ to Sean Patrick!


----------



## u Cube (Jun 22, 2019)

woah gj sean! Hope to see the worlds first sub 6 roux average soon!


----------



## PugCuber (Jun 22, 2019)

That’s my boy! That’s my boy! #LuzonRecord for sure!


----------



## Astral cubing (Jun 22, 2019)

Wow I’m hoping more Filipino cubers will continue to improve and get WRs.


----------



## Loser (Jun 23, 2019)

They all could be faster if they didn't use roux tho... So sad


----------



## Hazel (Jun 24, 2019)

Loser said:


> They all could be faster if they didn't use roux tho... So sad


Not true at all. Roux's potential is, by all reputable accounts, equal to if not more than CFOP. Roux has so many advantages.


----------



## NathanaelCubes (Jun 24, 2019)

Loser said:


> They all could be faster if they didn't use roux tho... So sad



Roux has a ton of potential just comparing how many of the top 20 cubers in the world use Roux and matching that with the percentage of Rouxers worldwide. Both Kian and Sean Patrick only had 2.x years of cubing before they got sub-7. That's gotta say something.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Jun 24, 2019)

So sad, fast people making such bad choices


----------



## Wish Lin (Jun 24, 2019)

NathanaelCubes said:


> Roux has a ton of potential just comparing how many of the top 20 cubers in the world use Roux and matching that with the percentage of Rouxers worldwide.





Aerma said:


> Not true at all. Roux's potential is, by all reputable accounts, equal to if not more than CFOP. Roux has so many advantages.


Yeah totally agree, it’s more fun too with those M and U moves. But the problem with Roux are that one, it isn’t a popular beginner’s method due to its block building not being algorithmic and lack of resources(relative to CFOP), making it hard for beginners to simply follow the book. And since THE beginner’s method is just a simplified CFOP it’s easier for beginners to follow the path and learn CFOP, Which in terms makes the percentage of speedcubers using Roux low.

That then in terms makes it’s resources way less than CFOP’s out there.Like a cycle.

Though not a Roux user myself, I don’t think that many Roux users either switch from Beginners method or switch from CFOP(as my Roux friends are). Quote me if this is not the case.


----------



## Loser (Jun 24, 2019)

Roux is more than a half second behind cfop..... I don't see why people don't get this

Klaudiusz is right


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jun 24, 2019)

CFOP in 2016 (by WR Ao5) is slower than Roux today.


----------



## Loser (Jun 24, 2019)

Sue Doenim said:


> CFOP in 2016 (by WR Ao5) is slower than Roux today.



And roux in 2019 is slower than cfop in 2017......


----------



## Astral cubing (Jun 24, 2019)

I mean the reason why ROUX is slower is because there haven’t been that many people pushing the times down as there are in CFOP.


----------



## Loser (Jun 24, 2019)

Astral cubing said:


> I mean the reason why ROUX is slower is because there haven’t been that many people pushing the times down as there are in CFOP.


Kians literally gotten to tilting his head to get better. Roux is running out of room to improve.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jun 24, 2019)

Loser said:


> And roux in 2019 is slower than cfop in 2017......


My point being that I think that Roux just needs to "catch up" with CFOP. After all, CFOP has been around for 38 years and Roux has only existed for 16.


Loser said:


> Kians literally gotten to tilting his head to get better. Roux is running out of room to improve.


I think that Roux is better off than CFOP in that respect, actually. When's the last time you heard of that kind of innovation with CFOP?

I think it would be super interesting to do a legitimate statistical analysis of the two. I asked my brother, who has done AP Statistics, and he said that you would use a T-test to look at that. If someone would help me sort the top 100 or so official averages by method, we could have some concrete, objective evidence.


----------



## Loser (Jun 24, 2019)

While roux is catching up to cfop, cfop is pushing farther along...


----------



## Daxton Brumfield (Jun 24, 2019)

Loser said:


> While roux is catching up to cfop, cfop is pushing farther along...


With the cube having so many possible combinations I think both roux and cfop will continue to improve as methods for a very long time. While yes I do prefer cfop, I have to say roux is a pretty neat method and it certainly has advantages, like it can be done rotationless, and it has a lower move count. I would not be surprised if cfop has pretty much reached it's full potential when roux reaches the age cfop is now. However that is just my opinion, and I think both methods are equally viable, and I am interested to see where they go.


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Jun 24, 2019)

Daxton Brumfield said:


> With the cube having so many possible combinations I think both roux and cfop will continue to improve as methods for a very long time. While yes I do prefer cfop, I have to say roux is a pretty neat method and it certainly has advantages, like it can be done rotationless, and it has a lower move count. I would not be surprised if cfop has pretty much reached it's full potential when roux reaches the age cfop is now. However that is just my opinion, and I think both methods are equally viable, and I am interested to see where they go.



it's possible to be global sub5 with cfop


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jun 24, 2019)

Does anyone know of any Roux users in the top 100 Ao5s other than Sean Patrick Villanueva, Kian Mansour, Alexander Lau, and Kaijun Lin?


----------



## Hazel (Jun 24, 2019)

Loser said:


> While roux is catching up to cfop, cfop is pushing farther along...





Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> it's possible to be global sub5 with cfop





Sue Doenim said:


> Does anyone know of any Roux users in the top 100 Ao5s other than Sean Patrick Villanueva, Kian Mansour, Alexander Lau, and Kaijun Lin?


CFOP has more fast people not because it's faster, but because more people use it. If as many people used Roux as CFOP, the world rankings would most definitely look much different.
Why don't more people use Roux? Because virtually everyone learns to solve the cube with the Beginner's method, aka LBL. The transition to CFOP isn't difficult, because it's the same thing, just with a few steps combined together. Transitioning from LBL to Roux is much harder, because you essentially have to re-learn the cube from scratch. You have to learn how to blockbuild, you have to learn CMLL, and how the heck LSE is done.
This doesn't make Roux a bad method in any sense, it just makes it less popular. And saying Roux is reaching it's limits just because Kian started to implement that head-tilt thing isn't a valid argument - yes, it's a minor thing to improve, but it doesn't mean there aren't bigger improvements nobody has thought of yet.
Now, I'm not saying Roux is better. That's my main point, really: there isn't enough evidence yet that either is better. Maybe someday in the next few years someone will think up a brand new method that's different from anything we've made up before, and it will make both CFOP and Roux pale in comparison.


----------



## Thom S. (Jun 24, 2019)

I mean, I don't want to spoil the fun, but can the Roux-opponents in this Thread start to use arguments? I wouldn't say that Roux is bad and CFOP is better because it's better are valid arguments

Also, someone mentioned that tilting your head means that Roux is sucked dry.
Speedstacking Records are still being broken, although the realization that you can start the timer with your palms and be a bit faster is not too long ago. I don't know about you but those two innovations seem pretty comparable


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 24, 2019)

Thom S. said:


> I mean, I don't want to spoil the fun, but can the Roux-opponents in this Thread start to use arguments? I wouldn't say that Roux is bad and CFOP is better because it's better are valid arguments
> 
> Also, someone mentioned that tilting your head means that Roux is sucked dry.
> Speedstacking Records are still being broken, although the realization that you can start the timer with your palms and be a bit faster is not too long ago. I don't know about you but those two innovations seem pretty comparable


And as I said in the first post, there are new people coming onto the roux scene (Sean Patrick) that will have different perspectives than Kian does. CFOP has had so many people develop it and come up with novel ideas but that’s just starting to happen with roux. Only waffo, Kavin, Kangaroux, Alex Lau and Kian have really contributed to the developement of the method other than Gilles Roux himself, while CFOP has had dozens of major contributors since the 80s. I don’t think it’s fair to base a comparison off of only 1 or a few factors. This is multifaceted, and that’s why I think it’s hard to definitively say that either roux or CFOP is better than another.

And people can easily say “well, roux is less popular because people are given the choice to choose one over the other and they choose CFOP, etc.” I think that’s a terrible argument. I’m not particularly fast, but often. I’ll share at comps that I use roux and people are like “is that even a fast method?” I’m not saying people should necessarily learn more about roux, but I think the circumstances that made roux less popular are just that- circumstances.


----------



## Thom S. (Jun 24, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> And as I said in the first post, there are new people coming onto the roux scene (Sean Patrick) that will have different perspectives than Kian does. CFOP has had so many people develop it and come up with novel ideas but that’s just starting to happen with roux. Only waffo, Kavin, Kangaroux, Alex Lau and Kian have really contributed to the developement of the method other than Gilles Roux himself, while CFOP has had dozens of major contributors since the 80s. I don’t think it’s fair to base a comparison off of only 1 or a few factors. This is multifaceted, and that’s why I think it’s hard to definitively say that either roux or CFOP is better than another.
> 
> And people can easily say “well, roux is less popular because people are given the choice to choose one over the other and they choose CFOP, etc.” I think that’s a terrible argument. I’m not particularly fast, but often. I’ll share at comps that I use roux and people are like “is that even a fast method?” I’m not saying people should necessarily learn more about roux, but I think the circumstances that made roux less popular are just that- circumstances.


You misunderstood my post


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Jun 24, 2019)

Aerma said:


> Now, I'm not saying Roux is better. That's my main point, really: *there isn't enough evidence yet that either is better*.



and that's where you're wrong.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 24, 2019)

Thom S. said:


> You misunderstood my post


No, I didn’t, you misunderstood mine. I was adding on to what you said. I agree with you and wanted to provide more evidence.


----------



## Loser (Jun 25, 2019)

Thom S. said:


> I mean, I don't want to spoil the fun, but can the Roux-opponents in this Thread start to use arguments? I wouldn't say that Roux is bad and CFOP is better because it's better are valid arguments



https://www.worldcubeassociation.or...onId=&years=&show=100+Persons&average=Average

this is all the arguments we need

2 in top 70 lmao

best roux user is only tied for 8th also lol


----------



## WoowyBaby (Jun 25, 2019)

Seriously, another Roux vs. CFOP argument? It literally doesn’t matter. Both are fast. One is not objectively better than the other. Period. Choose whichever one you enjoy more, that’s what really matters. Have fun.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 25, 2019)

Loser said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/events.php?eventId=333&regionId=&years=&show=100+Persons&average=Average
> 
> this is all the arguments we need
> 
> ...


Nice job cherry picking stats lmao


----------



## Loser (Jun 25, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Nice job cherry picking stats lmao


cherry pick stats for roux, they'll still favor cfop


----------



## kubnintadni (Jun 25, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Seriously, another Roux vs. CFOP argument? It literally doesn’t matter. Both are fast. One is not objectively better than the other. Period. Choose whichever one you enjoy more, that’s what really matters. Have fun.


I disagree. Given that Roux and CFOP are very different in approach to solving the cube, it is exceedingly unlikely that they should just so happen to be the same speed. One <i>is</i> objectively better than the other, even if we disagree (or don't think we can tell for sure yet) about which.


----------



## Thom S. (Jun 25, 2019)

Loser said:


> cherry pick stats for roux, they'll still favor cfop


You can interpret this how you want, that statement is contradicting.
Also, you seem to have such a hatred for Roux, did it do something to you?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jun 25, 2019)

Loser said:


> cherry pick stats for roux, they'll still favor cfop


Actually, if you take all of the times in the top 100 averages and find the mean time for each method, Roux is lower. The problem is, the sample size is low enough that I don't think it's a very good comparison. There's also a significant chance that I messed up. I don't have the numbers anymore, and the website is down, so I'll recheck it sometime later. Also, in case anyone was wondering, when I did the T-test, the p-value for whether Roux is faster was about 0.3, if I remember correctly. If I'm interpreting it correctly, that means that it's a pretty credible statistic. Then again, the sample size is by no means large, and that could bias the results a bunch.


----------



## RouxCuber (Jun 25, 2019)

Sue Doenim said:


> Actually, if you take all of the times in the top 100 averages and find the mean time for each method, Roux is lower. The problem is, the sample size is low enough that I don't think it's a very good comparison. There's also a significant chance that I messed up. I don't have the numbers anymore, and the website is down, so I'll recheck it sometime later. Also, in case anyone was wondering, when I did the T-test, the p-value for whether Roux is faster was about 0.3, if I remember correctly. If I'm interpreting it correctly, that means that it's a pretty credible statistic. Then again, the sample size is by no means large, and that could bias the results a bunch.



wow statistics! i just finished my alg 2 course and i hated stats. but i'm a Rouxvolutionist, so i join you.


----------



## kubnintadni (Jun 25, 2019)

Tudor Lin said:


> wow statistics! i just finished my alg 2 course and i hated stats. but i'm a Rouxvolutionist, so i join you.


It might have just been the way it was taught. I wish my stats class had used calculus to show derivations of the formulas that we applied. As it was it was mostly just plugging numbers into the proper formula without actually being given the reasoning and derivation behind the tests.


----------



## RouxCuber (Jun 25, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> And as I said in the first post, there are new people coming onto the roux scene (Sean Patrick) that will have different perspectives than Kian does. CFOP has had so many people develop it and come up with novel ideas but that’s just starting to happen with roux. Only waffo, Kavin, Kangaroux, Alex Lau and Kian have really contributed to the developement of the method other than Gilles Roux himself, while CFOP has had dozens of major contributors since the 80s. I don’t think it’s fair to base a comparison off of only 1 or a few factors. This is multifaceted, and that’s why I think it’s hard to definitively say that either roux or CFOP is better than another.
> 
> And people can easily say “well, roux is less popular because people are given the choice to choose one over the other and they choose CFOP, etc.” I think that’s a terrible argument. I’m not particularly fast, but often. I’ll share at comps that I use roux and people are like “is that even a fast method?” I’m not saying people should necessarily learn more about roux, but I think the circumstances that made roux less popular are just that- circumstances.



I think that considering this, that makes Roux even better because about 97% (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it''s somewhere there) of cubers use CFOP and like 1% Roux. Roux is already catching up to CFOP, if it has not already surpassed it. If any more of the cubing population uses Roux, the innovations and evolution of the method would be mind-blowing.


----------



## Ash Black (Jun 25, 2019)

I heard in an interview with Kian that he doesn't practice as much as other people might, and he is one of the only world class roux solvers, so with roux, you have a smaller sample size of people who practice a lot and get fast, so it is harder to tell which method is faster
the only way we would know for sure if roux or CFOP was better would be if we had 2 groups of about 100 people, one group using roux, and one group using CFOP, none of them would have had any experience with cubing whatsoever, and they would all have to start cubing on the same day, practicing the same amount each day, every day, and see who get's faster.


----------



## Astral cubing (Jun 25, 2019)

Personally if I knew of roux before cfop I would of used roux but cfop wa much easier to transfer to from lbl.
By the time I heard of roux I had heard too many people tell me, “don’t learn roux”, “ roux is trash”. Which just discouraged me .


----------



## Daxton Brumfield (Jun 26, 2019)

Lol, I feel like this thread has turned people a little bit toxic. Can we all just agree that just because a method may seem far superior to you, it may be awful for somebody with a different mindset, turning style, and all round goals. Some people like to use different, or even obscure methods just because they often provide a unique solving experience, or it produces better times for them. One method will ever be superior to other methods for everyone and I think everyone should accept that. I don't think that any top level roux solvers would enjoy cfop as much, and weather or not it would improve their times is a totally different topic which somebody should start a separate thread for because I think that that would be very interesting. All in all I feel like making statements like ____ would be faster if they used ____ method is just an unreasonable thing to assume, and if you really feel that way then maybe try addressing that person somehow, and then you can get their perspective. That is just what I think, but feel free to tell me your opinion.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 26, 2019)

Daxton Brumfield said:


> Lol, I feel like this thread has turned people a little bit toxic. Can we all just agree that just because a method may seem far superior to you, it may be awful for somebody with a different mindset, turning style, and all round goals. Some people like to use different, or even obscure methods just because they often provide a unique solving experience, or it produces better times for them. One method will ever be superior to other methods for everyone and I think everyone should accept that. I don't think that any top level roux solvers would enjoy cfop as much, and weather or not it would improve their times is a totally different topic which somebody should start a separate thread for because I think that that would be very interesting. All in all I feel like making statements like ____ would be faster if they used ____ method is just an unreasonable thing to assume, and if you really feel that way then maybe try addressing that person somehow, and then you can get their perspective. That is just what I think, but feel free to tell me your opinion.


I hope I wasn’t being unreasonable. I was trying to say that it’s cool that Sean Patrick got a good average with roux, and then later I tried to maintain that I think they are equal methods. I agree that it went too far, but I also think that some constructive discussion can teach us about the methods themselves, so I don’t think this is altogether bad


----------



## RouxCuber (Jun 26, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> I hope I wasn’t being unreasonable. I was trying to say that it’s cool that Sean Patrick got a good average with roux, and then later I tried to maintain that I think they are equal methods. I agree that it went too far, but I also think that some constructive discussion can teach us about the methods themselves, so I don’t think this is altogether bad



ok so going back to the topic that this thread was meant for, Kian's kind of regressing at this point (pretty sad, but we have to give him credit for trying; it is very hard to keep moving at that level). Sean's 6.42 avg doesnt undermine Kian; it's just a pretty nice step contributing to the Rouxvolution.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 26, 2019)

Tudor Lin said:


> ok so going back to the topic that this thread was meant for, Kian's kind of regressing at this point (pretty sad, but we have to give him credit for trying; it is very hard to keep moving at that level). Sean's 6.42 avg doesnt undermine Kian; it's just a pretty nice step contributing to the Rouxvolution.


I do hope that Kian keeps improving, however, specifically in OH because I see him as being the best in the world at this moment and I really want him to get OH WR average again.


----------



## Krisrejas (Jun 28, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> No es un AsR ni siquiera un NR, pero esta mañana, Sean Patrick Villanueva obtuvo un promedio de 6.42 3x3 en el campeonato de Luzón. Esto lo hace oficialmente mejor que Kian Mansour, quien es considerado el solucionador de roux más rápido, pero solo tiene un promedio de 6.52 en la actualidad.: eek:View attachment 10482
> 
> GJ a Sean Patrick!


 parece que sean tiene un gran futuro, batió a leo borromeo y ahora va ala mundial en Australia, va aser una competencia increible y espero ver entre los primeros a sean roux vs cfop, vamos roux


----------



## xyzzy (Jun 28, 2019)

Sue Doenim said:


> Actually, if you take all of the times in the top 100 averages and find the mean time for each method, Roux is lower. The problem is, the sample size is low enough that I don't think it's a very good comparison. There's also a significant chance that I messed up. I don't have the numbers anymore, and the website is down, so I'll recheck it sometime later. Also, in case anyone was wondering, when I did the T-test, the p-value for whether Roux is faster was about 0.3, if I remember correctly. If I'm interpreting it correctly, that means that it's a pretty credible statistic. Then again, the sample size is by no means large, and that could bias the results a bunch.


Do you have a list of all the fast (sub-10, say) Rouxers so I can try to replicate this finding? A list of people who use neither CFOP nor Roux (ZZ, Petrus, etc.?) would also be very welcome, but this is probably harder to get.

(No offence, but (i) I find this somewhat suspect and (ii) a p-value of 0.3 is _very_ weak evidence.)


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jun 28, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> Do you have a list of all the fast (sub-10, say) Rouxers so I can try to replicate this finding? A list of people who use neither CFOP nor Roux (ZZ, Petrus, etc.?) would also be very welcome, but this is probably harder to get.
> 
> (No offence, but (i) I find this somewhat suspect and (ii) a p-value of 0.3 is _very_ weak evidence.)


Yeah, I don't put a whole lot of stock into it either, the main reason being that the only Roux solvers I knew of were Kian, Sean, Alex Lau, and Kaijun Lin. That's a tiny and very possibly inaccurate sample size. What I did was go through the list of top 100 averages on the WCA website and, using my trusty TI-84, plug the four Rouxers into L1 and everyone else into L2. The results after doing "2-SampTTest" are as follows:
\[ \begin{array}{l}2-\mathrm{SampTTest}\\\mu_1<\mu_2\\\\\mathrm t=-.3758836974\\\mathrm p=.3655357854\\\mathrm{df}=3.12593854\\{\overline{\mathrm x}}_1=6.9625\\{\overline{\mathrm x}}_2=7.0715625\\{\mathrm{Sx}}_1=.574361965\\{\mathrm{Sx}}_2=.405624478\\{\mathrm n}_1=4\\{\mathrm n}_2=96\end{array} \]
I don't know stats very well; I know what the means and standard deviation are and I have a general grasp of what the p-value is, but I don't really know the rest of the stuff. You probably understand it a lot better than I do. At any rate, given the lack of surety on who uses what method and the small sample size, it's not an incredibly convincing bit of evidence.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 28, 2019)

Reading this thread was quite funny. It started off with someone saying that the fastest rouxer at home isn't the fastest officially, then it turned into a Roux v CFOP debate with the CFOPers/anti-Rouxers giving no good argument, and the Rouxers not really giving any proper argument, just pointing out that the CFOP argument was flawed. I just think that now's the time for everyone to realise that ZZ-A is the future. But seriously, CFOP and Roux are both really good methods, as is ZZ, it's just that people haven't listened to the arguments for and against each method. Trust me, I've had a lot of discussions on ZZvsCFOPvsRoux(vsPetrus a little bit) and the conclusion that I've come to is ZZ≈Roux>CFOP but other people have come to many different conclusions. The hard part of the whole debate is that it's impossible to prove with evidence of 'this person is the fastest, therfore their method is the best.' The easiest counter example is corners first in the 80s. Instead, the best way, imo, is to look at the concrete evidence in movecount and to look at the not-too-super-hypothetical ergonomics. For example, you could point out to different U perms. At the end of it all, you weigh out the evidence and choose the method that you think is the best. I have come to the conclusion of ZZ or Roux, and as I already mained ZZ, I chose ZZ. Some people would rather Roux, some would rather another, less well known method such as LEOR. It all depends on the person. In conclusion, use good evidence.


----------



## Etotheipi (Jun 28, 2019)

As it has already been pointed out, CFOP had been around for 22 years before Roux came. And within those 16 years Roux has existed it has gotten within fractions of a second from CFOP. Considering that many many more people use CFOP, and has existed longer, while Roux has many less users and is younger, proves that the method itself has more potential. You cant just look at the solve time. There are so many factors that so many people fail to notice, which gives them a very distorted picture. Now go tell me go wrong I am =D


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 28, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> Do you have a list of all the fast (sub-10, say) Rouxers so I can try to replicate this finding? A list of people who use neither CFOP nor Roux (ZZ, Petrus, etc.?) would also be very welcome, but this is probably harder to get.
> 
> (No offence, but (i) I find this somewhat suspect and (ii) a p-value of 0.3 is _very_ weak evidence.)


Anthony Brooks has a


PapaSmurf said:


> Reading this thread was quite funny. It started off with someone saying that the fastest rouxer at home isn't the fastest officially, then it turned into a Roux v CFOP debate with the CFOPers/anti-Rouxers giving no good argument, and the Rouxers not really giving any proper argument, just pointing out that the CFOP argument was flawed. I just think that now's the time for everyone to realise that ZZ-A is the future. But seriously, CFOP and Roux are both really good methods, as is ZZ, it's just that people haven't listened to the arguments for and against each method. Trust me, I've had a lot of discussions on ZZvsCFOPvsRoux(vsPetrus a little bit) and the conclusion that I've come to is ZZ≈Roux>CFOP but other people have come to many different conclusions. The hard part of the whole debate is that it's impossible to prove with evidence of 'this person is the fastest, therfore their method is the best.' The easiest counter example is corners first in the 80s. Instead, the best way, imo, is to look at the concrete evidence in movecount and to look at the not-too-super-hypothetical ergonomics. For example, you could point out to different U perms. At the end of it all, you weigh out the evidence and choose the method that you think is the best. I have come to the conclusion of ZZ or Roux, and as I already mained ZZ, I chose ZZ. Some people would rather Roux, some would rather another, less well known method such as LEOR. It all depends on the person. In conclusion, use good evidence.


I really liked reading that post, but I did not mean that the fastest router at home is not the fastest officially necessarily. I meant that others are catching up to Kian and this is a good thing. Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jun 28, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Anthony Brooks has a


Does he really?
[It seems to me that you forgot to finish your thought.]


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 29, 2019)

Sue Doenim said:


> ImmolatedMarmoset said:
> 
> 
> > Anthony Brooks has a
> ...


I accidentally a 5x5


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 29, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> I accidentally a 5x5


I accidentally the whole solve over
Beat that.



Sue Doenim said:


> Does he really?
> [It seems to me that you forgot to finish your thought.]


Oops! Anthony Brooks has a 7.60 average that was top 100 at the time he got it with full ZB, so that’s cool


----------



## waltermcy0110 (Oct 27, 2019)

Sean got a 5.98 avg today. Still waiting for reconstructions. I hope his improvements are from more efficient solutions so that I will not have an excuse for insisting that Kian is the best Rouxer.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 27, 2019)

Efficient!=good at Roux. Although Kian's the better OHer, and it's definitely a place where Sean can improve.


----------

