# NEW Guide to Choosing a Speedcubing Method (Speedcubing.org)



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Sep 3, 2020)

For a while now I have been working on a guide to choosing a speedsolving method for the Speedcubing.org website because I‘m very interested in methods and the only one in existence currently is the one on this forums which is very outdated. Today I have finally finished an initial version with the big 4 methods. In future I would like to expand it with more methods and more detail but for now this is the first version. Any feedback is greatly appreciated.









Guide to Choosing a Speedsolving Method


Choosing a Speedcubing Method This guide will continue to be updated with more methods and in future hopefully link through to pages with more detailed explanations and analysis of the methods, if you have any questions or suggestions message Alpha Cuber (me) on our discord server. You can also...




speedcubing.org






btw I’m doing leor next


----------



## HaHaHaHeeHeeHee (Sep 4, 2020)

yes very much critique

the its in the second last line of the zz thing shouldn't have an apostrophe.
otherwise good job


----------



## ottozing (Sep 4, 2020)

My version:

If you want to be generally better at Big cubes/Megaminx, do CFOP

If you want to be generally better at OH solving, do Roux

If you want to be generally better at OH solving but are politically opposed to table abuse, use CFOP

If you only care about being fast at 3x3, choose between CFOP & Roux

If you want to be generally better at other events like FMC or BLD stuff, learn those events because 3x3 stuff stops carrying over beyond 4-7 OH and Mega

If you don't care about being fast at 3x3, use whatever method you find interesting while remembering that "being an (insert method here) solver isn't a personality trait"

If people want me to go in depth on why I think recommending methods like ZZ/Petrus is irresponsible to people getting into cubing as a hobby, I can maybe do that next week or something


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Sep 4, 2020)

ottozing said:


> If you want to be generally better at OH solving but are politically opposed to table abuse, use CFOP


Me


----------



## MichaelZRC (Sep 4, 2020)

ottozing said:


> If people want me to go in depth on why I think recommending methods like ZZ/Petrus is irresponsible to people getting into cubing as a hobby, I can maybe do that next week or something


_angry petrus and zz noises_
But seriously, generally for people starting out cubing as a beginner or people who are switching from a method like LBL, its usually better to recommend a method like CFOP or Roux before going into other methods.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Sep 4, 2020)

ottozing said:


> If people want me to go in depth on why I think recommending methods like ZZ/Petrus is irresponsible to people getting into cubing as a hobby, I can maybe do that next week or something


I challenge you to crush my dreams.

Eh, most methods can get faster than a lot of people ever end up when quitting cubing so at that point it’s what’s the most fun.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Sep 4, 2020)

ottozing said:


> My version:
> 
> If you want to be generally better at Big cubes/Megaminx, do CFOP
> 
> ...


i agree with some of this and disagree with some. I will Try to explain why but I need to rewatch your zz vids first.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (Sep 5, 2020)

ottozing said:


> My version:
> 
> If you want to be generally better at Big cubes/Megaminx, do CFOP
> 
> ...


You can always count on @WarriorCatCuber to angry emote any post with negativity towards ZZ, LOL


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 5, 2020)

I think zz should also be there for oh, it's statistically insane for oh, and comparitively to it's popularity there have been a multitude of fast zz oh solvers.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Sep 6, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I think zz should also be there for oh, it's statistically insane for oh, and comparitively to it's popularity there have been a multitude of fast zz oh solvers.


ZZ is bad for OH.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Sep 6, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> ZZ is bad for OH.


But its not?


----------



## Alex Shih (Sep 7, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> But its not?


If you ask most top OH solvers whether they prefer RUF or RUL, I guarantee most of them are going to say RUF. That alone casts doubt on ZZ's OH potential compared to CFOP's.


----------



## MichaelZRC (Sep 7, 2020)

Alex Shih said:


> If you ask most top OH solvers whether they prefer RUF or RUL, I guarantee most of them are going to say RUF. That alone casts doubt on ZZ's OH potential compared to CFOP's.


ZZ OH is <RU> z <RU>


----------



## Silky (Sep 7, 2020)

Simon Kalhofer is 22 in the world and uses ZZ. I think there has been a pretty significant movement for OH specific methods, especially since the YruRU proposal. Gen reduction is very promising as finger tricks are really important in OH, so methods like ZZ, Petrus, and Roux become more and more viable.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Sep 7, 2020)

Alex Shih said:


> If you ask most top OH solvers whether they prefer RUF or RUL, I guarantee most of them are going to say RUF. That alone casts doubt on ZZ's OH potential compared to CFOP's.


Yes, ZZ technically reduces the cube to a <R,U,L> after the first step. Does that mean you solve it using RUL? HELL NO! Ask any top OH solver whether they prefer RUF or RU. I guarantee most of them are going to say RU. The first of ZZ step is admittedly awkward, but it's only 6-8 moves and not much worse than cross. You then do a short RU setup, one z rotation, more RU, a z' rotation, then RU for F2L. Compare that to the RLUFry stuff that CFOP users have to do. Last layer can be RUF, RUD, RUL, RrFU, RUFD, or whatever you like, but CFOP is the same move set, so there can be no criticism here. ZZ just makes one look every time practical, whereas CFOP usually needs two (admittedly fast) looks.

There are a few valid criticisms of ZZ, but so much of what I read are just regurgitated responses that show that the person trying to argue has no real experience with the method.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Sep 7, 2020)

Anyone who is criticising ZZ for OH should look up ZZ-z


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 7, 2020)

AlphaSheep said:


> Yes, ZZ technically reduces the cube to a <R,U,L> after the first step. Does that mean you solve it using RUL? HELL NO! Ask any top OH solver whether they prefer RUF or RU. I guarantee most of them are going to say RU. The first of ZZ step is admittedly awkward, but it's only 6-8 moves and not much worse than cross. You then do a short RU setup, one z rotation, more RU, a z' rotation, then RU for F2L. Compare that to the RLUFry stuff that CFOP users have to do. Last layer can be RUF, RUD, RUL, RrFU, RUFD, or whatever you like, but CFOP is the same move set, so there can be no criticism here. ZZ just makes one look every time practical, whereas CFOP usually needs two (admittedly fast) looks.
> 
> There are a few valid criticisms of ZZ, but so much of what I read are just regurgitated responses that show that the person trying to argue has no real experience with the method.


But you can do rotations in CFOP too, OH ZZ takes two rotations, CFOP of 2 handed takes approx 1 in sub 10 solvers, when turning that into OH, let's say only RU gen for F2L, it adds about, meh, 2 rotations. This barely slows down your time, and what about ZZ EO? It sometimes involves B moves, which adds more rotations, technically making ZZ have the same amount of rotations as ZZ. Ok, I know that a lot of CFOP OLLs and PLLs have F and D moves, but I'm talking about F2L so hear me out. When you are doing EO, the EO could have B and F moves scattered throughout, so let's say your EO looked like this: F' R' U2 R2 B' R F. Does this mean you will have to rotate ALMOST (I said almost) everytime you want to do B of F moves? Doesn't this make ZZ somehow have MORE rotations than CFOP?
ZZ is good for OH, but CFOP is better


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> But you can do rotations in CFOP too, OH ZZ takes two rotations, CFOP of 2 handed takes approx 1 in sub 10 solvers, when turning that into OH, let's say only RU gen for F2L, it adds about, meh, 2 rotations. This barely slows down your time, and what about ZZ EO? It sometimes involves B moves, which adds more rotations, technically making ZZ have the same amount of rotations as ZZ. Ok, I know that a lot of CFOP OLLs and PLLs have F and D moves, but I'm talking about F2L so hear me out. When you are doing EO, the EO could have B and F moves scattered throughout, so let's say your EO looked like this: F' R' U2 R2 B' R F. Does this mean you will have to rotate ALMOST (I said almost) everytime you want to do B of F moves? Doesn't this make ZZ somehow have MORE rotations than CFOP?
> ZZ is good for OH, but CFOP is better


?????
R U gen only f2l would be insanely inefficient comparitively to even normal cfop, but even worse if compared to ZZ.
it makes no sense plus doing extra rotations on top of that and its still less efficient and fingertrick friendly
than ZZf2l.


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> ?????
> R U gen only f2l would be insanely inefficient comparitively to even normal cfop, but even worse if compared to ZZ.
> it makes no sense plus doing extra rotations on top of that and its still less efficient and fingertrick friendly
> than ZZf2l.


I was talking about OH


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> I was talking about OH


I know


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I know


But EOs weird F and B moves adds more rotations to ZZ


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

R U F cfop is what Most people use for cfop OH because the effieciency and less rotations make up for the worse finger tricks
also doing like two f moves the whole solve is way better than how many are in a cfop solve with R U F
and R U cfop is just bad


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> R U F cfop is what Most people use for cfop OH because the effieciency and less rotations make up for the worse finger tricks


Ik, but you can just rotate to put those slots in, there are usually 2 F moves in a CFOP solve (F2L only) which cam be lowered to a rotation and RU gen


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

rotations are worse than f moves
you know that right?


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> rotations are worse than f moves
> you know that right?


Yes, but ZZs F and B moves are scattered throughout EO, so you would have to do RU gen, then rotate to do the F moves, then rotate back to normal to do more RU gen, then rotate again to do the B moves etc etc. ZZ is a good method, Phil Yu proven, but the EO messes it up


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

oh ya,
also Wide moves for backinserts which is way better than rotations.
i dont get why you think rotating into R U gen and having to adjust your´e grip that many times is a good idea...


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> oh ya,
> also Wide moves for backinserts which is way better than rotations.
> i dont get why you think rotating into R U gen and having to adjust your´e grip that many times is a good idea...


How do you do a wide F move from home grips in OH?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

R U into L U isnt A true Rotation IMO
your`e only swapping to fingers compared to other rotations.
also CFOP is R U F L 
Not R U F doing a whole rotation is not worth it instead of just doing a lefty pair

wide f move????
we were talking about Swapping fingers to do L Moves versus f moves or rotations


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> R U into L U isnt A true Rotation IMO
> your`e only swapping to fingers compared to other rotations.
> also CFOP is R U F L
> Not R U F doing a whole rotation is not worth it instead of just doing a lefty pair


I'm sorta new to OH, but how the heck do you do a LU insert from home grips
Ninjad


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

YOU DONT 
You swap to fingers to make it actaully like R U.
Thats what i said.....
I didnt say home grip.
but its way better than a full rotation or an F move


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> YOU DONT
> You swap to fingers to make it actaully like R U.
> Thats what i said.....
> I didnt say home grip.
> but its way better than a full rotation or an F move


But ZZs EO cancels out the F moves in CFOP!


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

?
Did i say that it didnt?????
what?
that has nothing to do with what i said in that post


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> ?
> Did i say that it didnt?????
> what?
> that has nothing to do with what i said in that post


Oh well I started talking about something else lol let's just end this my eyes hurt and it's hard to type on phone
CFOP and ZZ both are good OH methods, but it depends on the person. The pros for each method is that CFOP has easy on rotations and you can reach higher tps, where as for ZZ you can reduce the cube to RUL gen. The cons are for CFOP is that you have to rotate for front slots and for ZZ you have to use F and B moves for EO
(Everything is only for F2L, LL is for later)


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

I like how Owen comes through all my post with eyes up,
even the one that had nothing to do with the discussion 
instead of actually having a good argument


----------



## Owen Morrison (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I like how Owen comes through all my post with eyes up,
> even the one that had nothing to do with the discussion
> instead of actually having a good argument


I reacted with eyes up to the posts I thought were dumb.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

Instead of saying
there DuMB
Can you just explain youre thought process instead of letting someone else argue for you?
Like you say there dumb but you dont say why


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 8, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> But you can do rotations in CFOP too, OH ZZ takes two rotations, CFOP of 2 handed takes approx 1 in sub 10 solvers, when turning that into OH, let's say only RU gen for F2L, it adds about, meh, 2 rotations. This barely slows down your time, and what about ZZ EO? It sometimes involves B moves, which adds more rotations, technically making ZZ have the same amount of rotations as ZZ. Ok, I know that a lot of CFOP OLLs and PLLs have F and D moves, but I'm talking about F2L so hear me out. When you are doing EO, the EO could have B and F moves scattered throughout, so let's say your EO looked like this: F' R' U2 R2 B' R F. Does this mean you will have to rotate ALMOST (I said almost) everytime you want to do B of F moves? Doesn't this make ZZ somehow have MORE rotations than CFOP?
> ZZ is good for OH, but CFOP is better


Bruh, just git gud at B and F moves, that's literally the reason Roux OH solvers don't rotate too (yes, FB and SB have B and F moves, it's true.)


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

FB AND SB have F B and Wide Moves and Some M moves,
But because of effieciency the method is still really good for oh,
Look at ZZ v Cfop,
Theres Less rotations and F B moves AND its more efficient.
this is my argument trying to explain why i think ZZ is a good method for OH
Edit: and he puts a meh on this one lol


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> FB AND SB have F B and Wide Moves and Some M moves,
> But because of effieciency the method is still really good for oh,
> Look at ZZ v Cfop,
> Theres Less rotations and F B moves AND its more efficient.
> ...


Sometimes, things on paper are not quite true in reality.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Sep 8, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Sometimes, things on paper are not quite true in reality.


Like the Cleveland Browns last year.

@Sub1Hour is the only person on the forums that I know of who follows the NFL, so he'll find it funny.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Sometimes, things on paper are not quite true in reality.


Somewhat--
I Think that ZZ is better for OH,
On paper its better for 2H aswell,
But because of high level Lookahead that probably isnt true
tymon looks to atleast two pairs almost every solve lol


----------



## Sub1Hour (Sep 8, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> Like the Cleveland Browns last year.
> 
> @Sub1Hour is the only person on the forums that I know of who follows the NFL, so he'll find it funny.


You mean the cowboys every year?

Oh MaN wE GoNnA PoP OfF ThIs YeAr, BeSt OfFeNcE iN ThE nFl, DaK iS gOaTeD

*proceeds to go 8-8 and miss the playoffs despite being in the worst divisionin football by a mile*

yAlL sLeEpIn On ThE cOwBoYs, ThIs YeAr wE
*insert minor change in the roster/staff*! SuPeR bOwL hErE We CoMe!

*goes 8-8 again*

NeXt YeAr MaN!

*goes 8-7-1*

LETS GO COWBOYS BEST FRANCHISE OF ALL TIME

*loses in the wildcard*

I mean at this point it’s almost like Groundhog Day but for an NFL season


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

I feel bad for my family they think the cowboys are so amazing...


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 8, 2020)

I think ZZ is better than we give it credit for. If you can do ZZ-a with an EO-Cross in inspection then I think that could be the best feasible method for 2H, other than full ZB. For OH, it could be better due to less moves and no rotations. If you want to do OH but you just can't do M moves for roux, either git gud or do ZZ



> I feel bad for my family they think the cowboys are so amazing...



Lol try living in the UK and supporting Arsenal.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 8, 2020)

idk, in 2H ZZ is pretty nice but in OH, I feel like CFOP is always one pair ahead than ZZ cause you don't need to do EO. (well you could solve this problem by doing EOCross really fast, in 2H ZZ that's pretty much possible)


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

¨on paper¨
as we were saying,
on paper ZZ plus ZBLL is one of the best methods but thats again
on paper,
in practice this doesnt seem to be true,
i personally think because to get top level with ZZ because of EO you need eminse TPS during Cross,F2L,and LL which i dont see being possible for most people.
with this flaw, and the fact that people probably couldnt do cross+1 or 2 most solves make ZZ not As good as it looks.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 8, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> idk, in 2H ZZ is pretty nice but in OH, I feel like CFOP is always one pair ahead than ZZ cause you don't need to do EO. (well you could solve this problem by doing EOCross really fast, in 2H ZZ that's pretty much possible)



With ZZ i feel like it's worse cross for better F2L and better LL.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> ¨on paper¨
> as we were saying,
> on paper ZZ plus ZBLL is one of the best methods but thats again
> on paper,
> ...


ZZ is a method where it's best when you have gotten good.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> ¨on paper¨
> as we were saying,
> on paper ZZ plus ZBLL is one of the best methods but thats again
> on paper,
> ...



It's possible to do XEO-Cross, but that would require the peak human being.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

Also TBH i think all of the big 4 are trash for OH,
and we need to create and use More OH
Specific methods like LEOR,
that dont have as huge flaws for OH..


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 8, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> It's possible to do XEO-Cross, but that would require the peak human being.


Kek Radmac's already planning EOCross + 1 and more.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> It's possible to do XEO-Cross, but that would require the peak human being.


I This is one of the things i couldnt stand about ZZ when i tried it,
it requires so much effort.
plus i said MOST people


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 8, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Kek Radmac's already planning EOCross + 1 and more.



He's the peak human being then.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Also TBH i think all of the big 4 are trash for OH,
> and we need to create and use More OH
> Specific methods like LEOR,
> that dont have as huge flaws for OH..


Bro what the heckin heck Roux is better than most OH specific methods and it's part of the big four.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Also TBH i think all of the big 4 are trash for OH,
> and we need to create and use More OH
> Specific methods like LEOR,
> that dont have as huge flaws for OH..



Yea like YruRU


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

Ya but Roux still has a huge flaw in fingertricks,
thats why i think LEOR or 42 could be the next big methods,
42 bieng very efficient
and LEOR(and YruRU) having Less M moves


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Ya but Roux still has a huge flaw in fingertricks,
> thats why i think LEOR or 42 could be the next big methods,
> 42 bieng very efficient
> and LEOR(and YruRU) having Less M moves


Hahahahahahahaha Roux fingertricks are not that bad, if it is, git gud lol.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Hahahahahahahaha Roux fingertricks are not that bad, if it is, git gud lol.


????
Comparitively like they really are for OH,
so i think we need to try to push methods farther seperately,
i know roux fingertricks arent bad for 2H.
also i know how to do the m move thing, but adjusting youre hand mid solve plus second block wide moves and m moves is pretty bad

I think out of most of the CURRENT methods Roux is up there for OH but thats CURRENT methods,
OH needs to develop more.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> ????
> Comparitively like they really are for OH,
> so i think we need to try to push methods farther seperately,
> i know roux fingertricks arent bad for 2H.
> also i know how to do the m move thing, but adjusting youre hand mid solve plus second block wide moves and m moves is pretty bad


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> what does that have to do with anything?
> i used to be sub 15 with roux...



Actually watch at the time it starts


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

I KNOW I SAID I KNOW THE M THING
this is what i meant..
again you still have to do random M moves and Wide moves through second block
AND completely rigrip before LSE

sorry about that was confused lol


TheSlykrCubr said:


> Actually watch at the time it starts


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I KNOW I SAID I KNOW THE M THING
> this is what i meant..
> again you still have to do random M moves and Wide moves through second block
> AND completely rigrip before LSE



You'll have to regrip completely in cfop multiple times


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

Have you been listening???
i never said anything about it bieng bad for OH
i just said that we need OH specific methods to get even faster..
Its deffinetly one of the fastest RN and the fastest out of the big 4

also @Username: Username:
could you send a link to Radmac?


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Also TBH i think all of the big 4 are trash for OH,



Explain


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

Petrus Has very bad fingertricks
ZZ has RUL and is to TPS based,
CFOP has awkward rotations and is inefficient.
Roux is good, but still has a flaw in fingertricks.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Petrus Has very bad fingertricks
> ZZ has RUL and is to TPS based,
> CFOP has awkward rotations and is inefficient.
> Roux is good, but still has a flaw in fingertricks.



Don't ignore the evidence that you said roux was trash


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

sorry,
i was bieng to exagirative


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> sorry,
> i was bieng to exagirative



Yea that's ok. I do agree we need better OH methods.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> R U cfop is just bad


----------



## TheKravCuber (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Petrus Has very bad fingertricks
> ZZ has RUL and is to TPS based,
> CFOP has awkward rotations and is inefficient.
> Roux is good, but still has a flaw in fingertricks.


Not gonna comment on the other methods as I'm not experienced enough with them to argue your point against them but what "flaw in fingertricks" are you referring to


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I KNOW I SAID I KNOW THE M THING
> this is what i meant..
> again you still have to do random M moves and Wide moves through second block
> AND completely rigrip before LSE


you dont "regrip completely" while transitioning to lse roux is completely rRUM gen which imo is the best move set for oh


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

Read the other post?????


TheKravCuber said:


> Not gonna comment on the other methods as I'm not experienced enough with them to argue your point against them but what "flaw in fingertricks" are you referring to


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Have you been listening???
> i never said anything about it bieng bad for OH
> i just said that we need OH specific methods to get even faster..
> Its deffinetly one of the fastest RN and the fastest out of the big 4


do you have any proof i can say what cfopers love to say. roux has ytuwr for oh so it must be the best. you cant say cfop or even roux is the best for oh


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

Kaneki Uchiha said:


> do you have any proof i can say what cfopers love to say. roux has ytuwr for oh so it must be the best. you cant say cfop or even roux is the best for oh


dude i dont even use cfop lol,
and also what?
i didnt say that it was the fastest,
i think roux is the best out of the big 4
read,
also do you know what context is?


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I think out of most of the CURRENT methods Roux is up there for OH but thats CURRENT methods,
> OH needs to develop more.


you contra dict yourself


----------



## mukerflap (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I KNOW I SAID I KNOW THE M THING
> this is what i meant..
> again you still have to do random M moves and Wide moves through second block
> AND completely rigrip before LSE


do you even use roux though


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> dude i dont even use cfop lol,
> and also what?
> i didnt say that it was the fastest,
> i think roux is the best out of the big 4
> ...


i never said you used it i said cfopers if you are not it isnt referring to you


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

I used to, i was sub 15 with cfop roux and zz,
so ive never been to great at either but i understand how to use oh and again
look at literally the post the other guy qouted,

i never said anything about it bieng bad for OH
i just said that we need OH specific methods to get even faster..
Its deffinetly one of the fastest RN and the fastest out of the big four

so ya, i think roux is a good method for OH.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I used to, i was sub 15 with cfop roux and zz,
> so ive never been to great at either but i understand how to use oh and again
> look at literally the post the other guy qouted,
> 
> ...


Ya have a problem with Roux's fingertricks?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

Oh my gawsh,
we already went over all of this jeez laweez....


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

and again RrUM isnt that bad BUT,
it could be better,
and thats were OH specific methods need to come in


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> and again RrUM isnt that bad BUT,
> it could be better,
> and thats were OH specific methods need to come in


what moveset do you think can be better than rRUM?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

why are you guys even arguing about any of this?
this is all i was saying
Roux is good but has a flaw in fingertricks,
when we were talking about the BEST POSSIBLE method for OH and how I thought we should look into OH specific methods...


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> and again RrUM isnt that bad BUT,
> it could be better,
> and thats were OH specific methods need to come in


Ergonomics aren't the only thing that contribute to a method being bad or good, you'll have to look at other drawbacks as well.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

R U r 
R U L 
R U M 
ect

thats what i was doing bruh,
thats why i said roux was good for oh,
but again trying to find the optimal method for OH,
not Roux bieng a bad method

also why did you Eyes up my ironic jeez laweez post )=
i was trying to lighten the mood lol


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> thats what i was doing bruh,
> thats why i said roux was good for oh,
> but again trying to find the optimal method for OH,
> not Roux bieng a bad method


Firstly, I beg you to correct your grammar mistakes lol.
Secondly,



ObscureCuber said:


> Also TBH i think all of the big 4 are trash for OH,


----------



## TheKravCuber (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> thats what i was doing bruh,
> thats why i said roux was good for oh,
> but again trying to find the optimal method for OH,
> not Roux bieng a bad method


I've read through this conversation twice and still cannot find the message you are referring to, I understand that you dont think Roux is a bad method, I just think the flaw that you picked is just blatantly wrong so I'll ask again, what flaw in fingertricks are you referring to


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Sep 8, 2020)

TheKravCuber said:


> I've read through this conversation twice and still cannot find the message you are referring to, I understand that you dont think Roux is a bad method, I just think the flaw that you picked is just blatantly wrong so I'll ask again, what flaw in fingertricks are you referring to


@ObscureCuber can you tell him?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

litterally earlier i said i was exagerating,
also ive said that like 5 times.\


ObscureCuber said:


> Have you been listening???
> i never said anything about it bieng bad for OH
> i just said that we need OH specific methods to get even faster..
> Its deffinetly one of the fastest RN and the fastest out of the big 4





ObscureCuber said:


> Petrus Has very bad fingertricks
> ZZ has RUL and is to TPS based,
> CFOP has awkward rotations and is inefficient.
> Roux is good, but still has a flaw in fingertricks.





ObscureCuber said:


> dude i dont even use cfop lol,
> and also what?
> i didnt say that it was the fastest,
> i think roux is the best out of the big 4
> ...



why is everyone so angry on this forum,
whenever a debate is started people just get more and more frustrated at eachother over god damn competitive ROOBIKS COOBING
this is sarcastic if you cant tell


----------



## TheKravCuber (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> why is everyone so angry on this forum,
> whenever a debate is started people just get more and more frustrated at eachother over god damn competitive ROOBIKS COOBING


I'm not angry lol, I just think you're spreading false information about a method regarding its finger tricks without actually providing evidence that proves it, as I said in my previous comment, I'm not branding you as a Roux-hater, I just think that your argument about its flaws is, well, flawed.
Roux does have its flaws, like any other method does, CMLL recog not being as fast as OLL recog for example 

Again, I'm not hating on you or being an angry 12 year old who is offended by everything you say, I'm just trying to correct a flawed statement


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> litterally earlier i said i was exagerating,
> also ive said that like 5 times.\


Bro, Krav is literally saying *which* fingertrick is flawed? lol you said it like 5 times and you haven't put evidence or even which one is.


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 8, 2020)

oh no what have I done


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 8, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> Yes, but ZZs F and B moves are scattered throughout EO, so you would have to do RU gen, then rotate to do the F moves, then rotate back to normal to do more RU gen, then rotate again to do the B moves etc etc. ZZ is a good method, Phil Yu proven, but the EO messes it up


Lol who in the world said to rotate during EO in ZZ ever.


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 8, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Lol who in the world said to rotate in ZZ ever.


How do you do a B move?


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 8, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> How do you do a B move?


Either pinky or ring, also, watch Anto's video on Cubing Scene for him showing it, titled OH fingertricks.


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 8, 2020)

Oh ok lol


Username: Username: said:


> Either pinky or ring, also, watch Anto's video on Cubing Scene for him showing it, titled OH fingertricks.


----------



## Nmile7300 (Sep 8, 2020)

I clearly missed something.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Sep 8, 2020)

Oh...
I’m 6 pages late but method war incoming


----------



## Nmile7300 (Sep 8, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> Oh...
> I’m 6 pages late but method war incoming


The method war already came. I woke up today and was like "what?"


----------



## TheKravCuber (Sep 8, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> Oh...
> I’m 6 pages late but method war incoming


Was kinda a civil war lol, people really dont like supporting their arguments in these forums


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

It wasn´t really a civil war because i had no one on my side / :


----------



## Silky (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> It wasn´t really a civil war because i had no one on my side / :


I for sure agree with you about the move toward OH specific methods. It's something that has been long overdue. Roux and ZZ have really proven that gen-reduction, lack of rotations, and efficiency are becoming more and more important. One of the largest downfalls with CFOP, especially in OH, is efficiency, rotations, and lack of algsets. Since there is more time to recognize cases ZZ/Petrus really benefit from consistently integrating 2GLL/ZBLL and Last Slot sets, which also lower movecount, which previously stated is pretty important. LEOR and YruRU for sure have the most potential when it comes to OH, given the axioms I've set up for evaluating such methods. iI think Petrus falls into a bit of a grey area since it still has rotations. Efficiency should make up for this and since there only requires one planned rotation, the rotation is minimized ergonomics wise.


TheKravCuber said:


> Was kinda a civil war lol, people really dont like supporting their arguments in these forums


I can't speak for everyone but I think this has some challenges. Theory crafting/method debates are of course subjective/bias. I think one of the biggest issues regarding this matter is that people rely a bit too heavily on statistics for support ( saying that this is the only valid means by which to evaluate methods ). Being analytical is really just as valid as support in critical debate. Statistics have a pretty heavy interpretive flaw, as theres way too much confirmation bias. To add to this people are far more critical of other methods than of CFOP. I think support wise there needs to be equal weight in critical thought as well as statistical analysis.

Also, @AlphaCuber is awesome nice work on the thread, this is for sure long overdue. Let us know if you need any help with working on other methods.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

Silky said:


> To add to this people are far more critical of other methods than of CFOP.


I dont know if that is as true on the forums, ive seen people say cfop is terrible alot.
I dont think it is and most dont think it is but there out there for sure.


----------



## Silky (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I dont know if that is as true on the forums, ive seen people say cfop is terrible alot.
> I dont think it is and most dont think it is but there out there for sure.


For people arguing for other methods for sure. I kinda just meant people that mindlessly argue for CFOP.


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Sep 8, 2020)

why is there even a debate about oh methods just use roux smh



TheSlykrCubr said:


> It's possible to do XEO-Cross, but that would require the peak human being.


----------



## TerryD (Sep 8, 2020)

zz vs cfop

ergonomics:
cross and eocross have the same ergonomics, so i'm not going to include that.
ZZ-<RUz>
CFOP-<RULFy> or if you want to count L moves as zR then <RUFyz>
zz has better ergonomics so also higher max tps.

movecount:
ZZ-45 to 55
CFOP-55 to 65, maybe 55 to 60 if you blockbuild xcross or use more algs or something

lookahead:
zz lookahead is easier because of EO.


why is this even an argument, zz is clearly better than cfop at oh.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

TerryD said:


> zz vs cfop
> 
> ergonomics:
> cross and eocross have the same ergonomics, so i'm not going to include that.
> ...


EOcross is more like 50 moves, and you have to count the fact that because of eo moves you have to have the same if not higher tps during F2L and LL


----------



## TerryD (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> EOcross is more like 50 moves, and you have to count the fact that because of eo moves you have to have the same if not higher tps during F2L and LL


no, you don't need same or higher tps because of the lower movecount of zz. also, zz has a higher max tps


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

Because of the EO moves it cancels out the efficiency,
making you need the same or higher tps during f2l


----------



## Silky (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Because of the EO moves it cancels out the efficiency,
> making you need the same or higher tps during f2l


You have more time to do optimal blockbuild plus you have access to LS and ZBLL and no rotations


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

not many people use Normal ZZ anymore even for oh,
ZZ only has a 
¨higher tps limit¨
if you use cross


----------



## TerryD (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> not many people use Normal ZZ anymore even for oh,
> ZZ only has a
> ¨higher tps limit¨
> if you use cross


yes, zz has a higher tps limit if you use eocross. zz with eocross is still more efficient than cfop though lol


----------



## Nmile7300 (Sep 8, 2020)

Can we just stop already? This is 6 pages full of pointless arguing. Nobody is going to change their mind, so let's do everyone a favor and just stop.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

Dude i just explained that lol
The EO means that youre going to have to have the same or higher tps,
because it cuts time and moves out of the rest of the solve not solving anything


----------



## TerryD (Sep 8, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> Can we just stop already? This is 6 pages full of pointless arguing. Nobody is going to change their mind, so let's do everyone a favor and just stop.


if conclusive points are made, why shouldn't anyone change their mind?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

the average EO movecount is 6-7 if a solve was 50 moves, it would be more like actaully needing the tps of a 56 move solve during f2l, and ll, BUT because of LL and tps it partially makes up for that.
and eo cross doesnt even have higher tps limits,
R U gen with rotations, 
is seemingly better than 
R U L.


----------



## Nmile7300 (Sep 8, 2020)

TerryD said:


> if conclusive points are made, why shouldn't anyone change their mind?


I'm not staying people shouldn't change their mind, I'm saying they just won't. Countless method arguments like this one have happened on the forums and I've never seen anyone actually change their opinion.


----------



## TerryD (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> the average EO movecount is 6-7 if a solve was 50 moves, it would be more like actaully needing the tps of a 56 move solve during f2l, and ll, BUT because of LL and tps it partially makes up for that.
> and eo cross doesnt even have higher tps limits,
> R U gen with rotations,
> is seemingly better than
> R U L.


eocross has same tps limits as cross but zzf2l and ll have higher tps limits than cfop.
RU gen with rotations is better than RUL, and even better than RULF with rotations. 
as i said, zz is RUz while cfop is RULFy or RUFyz, so i don't see how you can argue that cfop has better ergonomics than zz.


----------



## mukerflap (Sep 8, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> I'm not staying people shouldn't change their mind, I'm saying they just won't. Countless method arguments like this one have happened on the forums and I've never seen anyone actually change their opinion.


so what?


----------



## Nmile7300 (Sep 8, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> so what?


So we should stop arguing for no reason, that's what.


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Sep 8, 2020)

TerryD said:


> yes, zz has a higher tps limit if you use eocross. zz with eocross is still more efficient than cfop though lol


EOCross's bad ergonomics nerf the overall TPS limit for ZZ, but the burst tps during f2l can be much higher.


----------



## mukerflap (Sep 8, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> So we should stop arguing for no reason, that's what.


i dont see why you care so much about other people arguing


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

EO cross takes up much more time than normal cross, making it have more of an effect on the solve tps wise

why cant people argue,
its not like its hurting anyone


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> why cant people argue,
> its not like its hurting anyone


It’s hurting my brain


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> It’s hurting my brain


Than stop reading it


----------



## Nmile7300 (Sep 8, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> why cant people argue,
> its not like its hurting anyone


Because I can guarantee you have better things to do than argue for no reason.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 8, 2020)

I don't, and also you can do multiple things at once


----------

